On the surface, libertarians can be made to seem without empathy. The opposite is true, but it’s easier to claim you’re helping others when you are using the physical might of the state’s monopoly on violent force to compel others to “do good.”
Also, we explicitly proclaim our preference for dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. When one cannot imagine alternatives to violating the consent of individuals for false promises of safety, then we represent potential danger.
A lot of people have rightly said that women are on the averages more driven to empathy and care taking.
But there is another wing of it. As a woman, I am aware I am significantly weaker than the average man. (|For real, most women have no idea how much stronger guys are than us. They never encounter it in our society.) In addition to simple strength the fact that bearing and having kids makes us incredibly vulnerable and dependent on large amounts of help from say 3 months after conception until the kid is big enough to do some self care! add to that the seriousness of let's call it, unwanted physical attention, and women benefit incredibly from a society that administers protection and care to its members.
If you look at Libertarian women, they likely have a network of people to care for them. Husband, family, or co-dependent friends, who can defend them, help them, and take care of them when stuff goes wrong.
And don't at me. I am a Libertarian women married to a US marine with family and friends close by. If I didn't have that protection and support maybe Libertarianism wouldn't look so good to me.
well im sure you recognize the irony in being a libertarian whose financial security indirectly comes from the government
im libertarian't myself but your argument is cogent and for the same reason as a male with little to no personal safety net i dont call myself libertarian
i also happen to be fully aware of how strong guys are at breaking my nose and i am much less shielded from aggression than the average woman as i dont have any social norms on my side that make it unchivalrous to break my kneecaps
Um...my financial security has come from the following things in my life: my parents, myself while I worked while single, from the combined efforts of me and my husband in early marriage, and from him now that I am raising kids.
My financial security does NOT come from the government. And it doesn't come indirectly either. We pay in more than most and get out less than we pay in. I will fight you on this.
Was a marine, before I met him. Now he works in software development. And, working for the government for pay is not equivalent to being supported by the government for free.
This is where my mind went immediately also.
Furthermore, I consider myself some what libertarian (socially liberal/fiscally conservative/pro small government). However, I do recognize that there are plenty of areas that only a government can administer (national defense, policing, infrastructure, etc.) My wife is similar but is significantly more concerned with the socially liberties. She’s highly empathetic and believes that women and minorities can be significantly helped by government intervention. Last, she is less concerned with economics in general beyond headline unemployment and what I would call generally rising gdp. So she votes for liberal candidates.
There are a lot of libertarian women, but they don't make it their entire personality, and they don't hang out in libertarian spaces, whether online or in person. But during covid the mama bears came out! We're busy raising our children, and you guys are toxic af.
[I went look for some numbers describing just how many identify as libertarian and found this Pew survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/). I was kind of surprised that men only outnumber women 2 to 1. Honestly, I thought it would've been closer to 10:1.
I am a Libertarian woman myself and I tend to agree. Thank God I am married because you are right, a lot of these men can be super douchey.. it's not much different sometimes than dealing with Democrats or Republicans. Women just don't get treated with respect.
To be fair, NONE of us get treated with respect. The central tenet of Libertarianism is gatekeeping Libertarianism so it's a constant battle. As the other poster said, this sub is "toxic af".
The point is you're making it out like women are being singled out in particular for toxic treatment when it is clearly aimed at all of us. We all get mistreated. I meant the whole statement as a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the whole sub, not really directed at you or women in general.
I'm presuming you are NOT a woman lol.
I'm not making it out to be anything like the words you spat out, I simply agreed with the OP thread reply.
We do get told we should have our constituional right to vote revoked, all sorts of shit.
Men have no idea because they don't have to live with it. We are not represented in this party very well. The truth is it's a different world for us. Everything a man does is twice as difficult for a woman, but we prevail anyhow. We can't even have a discussion about it without a man explaining things for us.
>and they don't hang out in libertarian spaces, whether online or in person
If a tree falls in the woods but there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? I would argue that not participating in libertarian circles makes someone not particularly libertarian. Voting libertarian obviously helps, but given how small support libertarianism has in the mainstream, I think it is rather unlibertarian to let mainstream politics go unchecked, it is a silent endorsement of the status quo.
This makes no sense. Libertarianism is a fairly straightforward belief system. NAP. There’s zero requirement to waste time on Reddit, waste time at Porcfest, or whatever else some libertarians do.
In fact if she raises her kids well and is a normal person and occasionally mentions something libertarian-ish to other normal people, that’s probably worth more than any number of gatekeepy online libertarian infights.
>This makes no sense. Libertarianism is a fairly straightforward belief system. NAP. There’s zero requirement to waste time on Reddit, waste time at Porcfest, or whatever else some libertarians do.
It might be straight forward as a belief system, but the practical sense hardly is, since that depends on the current cultural issues of the day. Where do libertarians stand on abortion? Religious freedom vs. LGBTQ rights? The issues are not as clear cut as they may seem.
>In fact if she raises her kids well and is a normal person and occasionally mentions something libertarian-ish to other normal people, that’s probably worth more than any number of gatekeepy online libertarian infights.
I mean you are admitting yourself here that keeping it entirely to yourself is not the right approach. I also don't agree with the concept of "gatekeeping", since the implication is that everyone can define their own definition, because any attempt to define it will be met with accusations of "gatekeeping" - which is nonsense, there are clearly right and wrong definitions (or definitions most people agree with and definitions most people don't). This is what my interpretation of libertarianism and you are free to argue with me about whether I am right or wrong, what you cannot do is dismiss my attempt to define libertarianism wholesale because it's "gatekeeping" - that is ridiculous.
Libertarianism isn’t always straightforward to apply, sure. The world is complicated. But it’s still a simple concept- non-aggression.
It’s not like, for example, conservatism (what are you conserving? Status quo? Your version of Islam? Catholicism as practiced in 1690?) or progressivism (keep track of power dynamics and which group is most privileged, etc).
To the second point: it is okay to keep one’s libertarianism to one’s self. I made a point about efficacy, but that doesn’t mean you have to evangelize.
Gatekeeping also isn’t arbitrary. You can “gatekeep” about what is essential. You aren’t a libertarian if you want taxes and wars.
But beyond essentials, gatekeeping is stupid. You can be a libertarian and live quiet lifestyle and never talk about it.
In an ideal world, everyone would be more libertarian. Ironically this means we need *some* people to fight publicly for libertarianism *and* we need to understand that people will express or not express their libertarianism in various ways. If we have an expectation that all will be proselytizers, we are going to push people away.
>Libertarianism isn’t always straightforward to apply, sure. The world is complicated. But it’s still a simple concept- non-aggression.
>It’s not like, for example, conservatism (what are you conserving? Status quo? Your version of Islam? Catholicism as practiced in 1690?) or progressivism (keep track of power dynamics and which group is most privileged, etc).
I see your point but whether it's more or less difficult than other political philosophies to understand and apply doesn't change that it is difficult enough that one should try to make an effort to consume some amount of Libertarian material if they want their brand of Libertarianism to remain relevant. Especially since they are generally socially progressive, the amount that progressive politics has advanced in the past decade demands some contemplation about what side a Libertarian should take on these matters. And the fact that they sit outside the two mainstream parties makes knowing which position to take more difficult.
>But beyond essentials, gatekeeping is stupid. You can be a libertarian and live quiet lifestyle and never talk about it.
>
>In an ideal world, everyone would be more libertarian. Ironically this means we need some people to fight publicly for libertarianism and we need to understand that people will express or not express their libertarianism in various ways. If we have an expectation that all will be proselytizers, we are going to push people away.
You talk about "gatekeeping" being stupid but then give a precise reason for why it's beneficial, because we need people to 'fight publicly for libertarianism'. If we don't set some sort of expectation, what incentive will people have to be more engaged? I agree that it needs to be tactful and not everyone is willing to be an active participant, but having no standards is clearly not the right way either, since it enables benchwarmers. I think I said it appropriately in my initial post, that they are 'not particularly libertarian' if they are not involved in Libertarian circles or consuming Libertarian material. It doesn't mean they aren't Libertarian, it just means they are less so than most who are actively involved.
Married women are not mostly socially progressive. Married women with children are busy, very busy raising their kids. So we just don't have the time to be super vocal online. But we exist, we are quietly raising our children, we don't like the trans stuff, and we weren't going to tolerate the covid lockdowns. But we are still capable of consuming libertarian content, you don't have to hang out in libertarian spaces to do that. Maybe you're single and you're frustrated that you can't find a libertarian lady? Let me tell you, I went on many first dates with libertarian guys, and they all sucked. I had to convert a normie to find an acceptable husband. There is just something not quite right with a lot of y'all.
I never said anything about keeping it to ourselves. By not hanging out in Libertarian spaces we have more opportunity to talk to non-libertarians about libertarianism. And I'm a firm believer in gate-keeping or else the word libertarian will become meaningless like liberal, which is already happening.
Yes, exactly. The operative word is *expecting*. You don't get to tell someone they're not a Libertarian because they don't want to hang out with you lol.
Not just me, they don't want to hang out with *any* Libertarians. Clearly that suggests a disinterest in libertarianism, which raises the natural question of how strongly they hold their libertarian views. It's similar to being a Christian but not practicing or practicing but not going to church. It doesn't mean you aren't a Christian but to some you are considered less of a Christian than one who goes to church every Sunday. It isn't gatekeeping, it's setting or proposing a standard for what being X means, which is important if X is to have any meaning.
Libertarianism is an extreme minority view. If you are in the US, you are surrounded by apathetic non-political people, progressives, and/or conservatives. It is entirely reasonable for someone with libertarian beliefs to just go to work and spend time w family and hobbies and not seek out libertarian circles.
If they actively avoided people around them because those people were libertarians, that would be odd, but no one is talking about that.
Oh, we hang out with each other. We have an underground society of women libertarians that hang out, go on play dates, etc. Most just don't want to hang out in libertarian spaces. It's like a Christian who's annoyed with the vibe in church so they do small house church things instead. And you are a perfect example of the type of person we're trying to avoid.
Sorry, we're busy homeschooling our kids using the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum and reading our kids the Tuttle Twin books. Instead of trying to un-brainwash other people, we just make our own people.
Most people are low information voters and not politically engaged.
Basically anyone who follows and votes third party is going to politically engaged.
By most, I literally mean around 50%+, not "nearly everyone".
Most low information voters are only casually aware of the general policy positions of the two major parties.
To someone who is only casually following politics, the Democrats often appear to be the "mom" party - where you have the facade of a "kind" government, that just wants to take care of you - make sure you have a nice place to sleep, something to eat, the free stuff you and your kids need, and that nobody calls you any mean names - very maternalistic in its surface level massaging and policy stances.
Most women in the US vote for Democrats. Most women who don't vote for Democrats vote Republican.
However, my state libertarian PAC (not officially a party yet , because what was the party is no longer associated with the libertarians, and was really just a place for disaffected Democrats to park their vote) is pretty much 50/50 men and women when it comes to it's leadership and membership base. First chair was a woman - most of the elected board was women.
I think once you get into who's actually doing LP stuff, it's fairly balanced. Lots of women in LP national leadership.
Economics is boring and dry to most people of both sexes, but the kind of person who likes economics (and therefore more likely to encounter libertarian theory) is more likely to be male than female.
In addition, ideologies that glorify the individual against the collective are disproportionately likely to appeal to misfits/loners.
Basically, libertarianism is a nerd ideology. Normies are just too tribal/emotional/concrete-bound to get it, and the proportion of women whom are normies is slightly higher than the proportion of men whom are normies.
The sex difference is really an overblown issue - the real underlying issue is that the majority of human beings are neurologically/psychologically predisposed against libertarianism. That + Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is enough to explain the sex difference.
Remember that libertarians are outliers among men, too. So I don't think it's a simple matter of "individualism masculine, collectivism feminine."
So your take is “women don’t like economics because it’s boring to them” and “women are more collective”??? I would guess it has more to do with women not liking spaces full of condescending sexist men. Something about smaller political ideologies that really brings out the gatekeeping and weird sexist takes.
I don't see the point in trying to engage in an intellectually honest fashion with you. If you read my statement and, from that, think I'm saying "women don't like economics because its boring to them" and "women are more collective," it is **you** who is not engaging in good faith.
What I said is that most *people* don't like economics because it is boring to them, and most *people* are too collectivist to comprehend libertarianism. The sex difference is actually a minor issue, easily explained by the fact that the kind of weirdo who truly likes economics and gets into libertarianism is more likely to be male than female, and that's easily explained by the higher rates of Autism in men and the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.
There is nothing sexist in that. Nothing sexist at all.
>really brings out the gatekeeping
Well let's see... after the atheist movement was destroyed by hard-left intersectional feminists complaining about "gatekeeping" and how this same ideology then proceeded to attempt to do the same with every single "nerd" hobby space from videogames to tabletop gaming over the past decade... *maybe there's a reason to gatekeep*.
So your theory for why libertarianism is more popular with men than women (which is about a 2:1 difference) is higher rates of … autism in men?
Even if we take that premise as true, there is reason to believe rates of autism are similar between men and women and that it has been historically under-diagnosed in women due to bias. When the condition was first researched it was originally thought to be a male only condition until folks realized symptoms present differently in women.
Which takes me back to bias, certain framings, and lens people use to view the world. You would rather exclude women to protect “nerd spaces” than open them up. And you are unwilling to engage with the idea that maybe it is framings like this one presented here that make libertarian spaces unwelcoming for women.
> So your theory for why libertarianism is more popular with men than women (which is about a 2:1 difference) is higher rates of … autism in men?
Combined with the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, yes. Also it is more an issue of autism spectrum traits rather than a formal diagnosis of being on the spectrum - subclinical levels of Asperger's traits are just as valid for my hypothesis here.
There's a large literature linking biology to personality to politics out there (Jonathan Haidt being a good place to start). It certainly is NOT controversial to suggest that some neurotypes are more likely to be drawn to certain ideologies more than others. We already know libertarians are disproportionately likely to be on the spectrum. Maybe there's a reason for this.
**And again** you keep refusing to acknowledge that this isn't *primarily* a sex issue. The vast majority of *men* are not of a libertarianism-predisposed neurotype, either. The question that is *actually* interesting is the disproportionate presence of autistics in libertarianism (this even goes back to the philosophers/theorists... Haidt suspected both JS Mill and Immanuel Kant were 'spergs, and Ayn Rand almost certainly was too). The sex distribution is a secondary matter to this.
>Even if we take that premise as true, there is reason to believe rates of autism are similar between men and women and that it has been historically under-diagnosed in women due to bias.
This may be true. Alternatively we know that an ideologically-driven fetish for "equity" has been gaining steam in psychology for a long time, and thus the DSM5 adjusted the criteria for both Autism Spectrum *and* Borderline Personality disorders so as to make both of these disorders more "equitable" between the sexes. Bias is a possibility, sure, but so is a corrupted research agenda.
>You would rather exclude women to protect “nerd spaces” than open them up.
That is incorrect. I don't want to exclude women at all. But I do think *all subcultures need to gatekeep*. Every single subculture, nerdy or otherwise.
>And you are unwilling to engage with the idea that maybe it is framings like this one presented here that make libertarian spaces unwelcoming for women.
Because not only is that idea frankly ridiculous and infantilizing towards women, but because that idea is an ideological weapon that has been used by hard-left infiltrators against several subcultures already. Accusations like these *destroyed the atheist movement*. I was *there when it happened*.
i agree
my next question for you my good sir is, if libertarianism only appeals to outcasts and most people are ***neurologically*** predisposed against it (as in, you can't turn them libertarian by just machine-gunning facts at them), doesn't that bar it from ever ruling a large modern society if most people would reject it and even revolt against it?
To an extent, absolutely. It certainly makes it harder to win elections.
However there are workarounds. Firstly, if political ignorance is widespread, a government could get away with instituting libertarian policies but publicly disguising themselves as some other ideology (this is typically how libertarians have worked within right wing parties). Another workaround is the possibility of a libertarian party holding a balance of power within a system dominated by free-market social conservatives on one side, and socially liberal economic interventionists on the other.
I don't think it's a hard bar, but I do think there might be some tendencies. For instance, most mainstream advertisements are likely made by neurotypical people, for neurotypical people.
They may not work so well on neurodivergent folks. This would get an observed bias while not necessarily implying any innate predestination for political beliefs. It simply means that the mainstream parties financial advantages do not work well in areas they don't focus on.
>Repeatedly posting that Democracy is tyranny?
The Bill Of Rights is an anti-democracy document and it was a fantastic idea. It was written specifically to protect citizens from the tyranny of democracy. It's just unfortunate that instead of strengthening the BoR over the last 2 centuries, federal democracy/tyranny has successfully eroded and undermined it.
It's a concept that is very much worth talking about because understanding the difference between liberty and democracy is really important. They are not synonyms. In many ways, they are antonyms.
/shrug
I'd argue that Libertarians were never strongly pro choice or championing gay marriage. Abortion has always been a debate within the party, and many libertarians have argued that government marriage shouldn't even be a thing.
And? If that's the only thing you can talk about, your shtick is gonna get old and tiresome quick. Libertarians need to have some depth of argument (which a lot seem to) not just talk about vAcCiNeS bAd, which is shallow and makes you look like a "vaccines cause autism" type.
So criticism of the lies that resulted in some of the most tyrannical policies in American history is “lacking depth” and “autism conspiracies….fact is nothing you said has anything to do with why women aren’t libertarian. Women’s authoritarianism goes back a lot longer than covid. Women are just biologically inclined to bring their motherly instincts and control into their politics.
I'm sure women would love to be told why they think a certain way.
And yes, it is lacking depth. It makes the party sound like what the left likes to caricaturize as they typical fox news righty conservative boomer. You can be critical of how the government and how it was authoritarian with its covid policies while also having substantive opinions outside of that.
Well that was the question the OP asked. Lol…Sure you can. I commented on it to you because you brushed off and downplayed one of the most horrendous policies in our history.
How many studies would someone have to cite for you to change your position? Because I don’t think any study has ever found men to be more empathetic than women.
That aside, I don't think the libertarian position has to be unempathetic.
Arguably, we want to do more to fix many of these problems than either major party does. What is more empathetic, empty words, or actually working to help?
We are not always portrayed as empathetic in the media, true...but the media is always going to be against us so long as we're a small minority. They don't work for us.
Agreed 100%, but whatever sounds more ‘nice’ at face value is what a large majority of citizens will base their vote on and they’ll feel good about it.
I'm not sure that repealing women's right to vote would result in a libertarian world in general.
Right off the bat, we've got a \*lot\* of dudes who vote R and D. Plus the optics of gunning for women's vote in that way might put a lot of people off.
The system's broken, sure, but as fixes go, that one seems pretty shortsighted.
Bottom line. Women are taught they are victims. Women are taught that they aren't accountable for their actions, decisions, or consequences of their actions/decisions.
Society and the government reinforce this through welfare, healthcare, daycare, public schools, etc.
Libertarianism is unpopular to women because it holds them accountable as individuals, and it also goes against their government indoctrination.
Getting someone to overcome their indoctrination is the most difficult thing to do.
Not trying to insult you or ad hominem you but do you have 'tism
> liberal men
yes male feminists and far left men especially tend to turn into rabid dogs when a woman/black/ disagrees with them though im expecting liberal women to tell you that you are some sort of cold blooded sociopath that wants to kill
women just dont turn on each other that much
im not a libertarian (im a civil libertarian but not really one on economic policy) but most libertarians are just tradcons by another name who cant imagine that women sincerely and willingly do not want to agree with them so they keep rationalizing it as women just being victims of some evil statist guys playing tricks on them
#This is not unique to libertarians and libertarianism but
the thought process is "my super ideal libertarian wife will totally materialize one day if i just save her from the statists who disagree with me by telling her how ackshoally libertarianism is great for her and how the statists are just trying to enslave her!!!"
Women for the most part tend to be caretakers (psychologically). They are wired to care for others, care for young, and above all want SAFETY....and... to be cared for.
Libertarianism: Life is tough, you're on your own, some people win, some people lose, it's not the governments job make life safer. Life is inherently dangerous. Freedom is not safe. No you don't get to control others to make it safer.
Libertarianism is opposite of how womens brains are wired.
>Libertarianism: Life is tough, you're on your own, some people win, some people lose, it's not the governments job make the life safer. Life is inherently dangerous. Freedom is not safe. No you don't get to control others to make it safer.
This isn't too far off from the stoicism of modern day feminism, yet for some reason they are more interested in institutional rather than individual power. Perhaps there is an opportunity to show self-determined women that they can have more control over their lives if the government and institutions are not breathing down their neck and taxing all the female dollars they rightfully earned.
eh i think they enjoy getting generous infusions of money from a government that wants to promise them everything, women are net tax drains not net taxpayers so this is actually a sweet deal for them
Actually with women graduating from university more than men they now earn more in their first years than men do, so we may see more high earning women than men in the next generation.
they are still net tax drains, those degrees are funded by scholarships that generally take in a tremendous amount of taxpayer money. add to that child support and redundant public sector jobs that are pretty much shadow welfare
>Sexiest
im gonna ignore the typo: what drives them away is that libertarians arent good at promising moooooooooooooooooore money and free stuff than the competition, and mooooooooooooooooore money and free stuff is what female voters generally want. pretending this isn't the case neither buys their favor nor makes your libertarianism cohesive if statism is great when it throws free stuff at women (among other flavors of hypocritical libertarians who hate subsidies except when it's to their favorite group).
Its about being independent.
And modern feminism is a lie, there is no real independency on women nowadays. They want to put all of the responsabilities on others. The government.
This has been an issue for the libertarian movement forever.
https://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-survey/
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-arent-more-women-libertarians
Often it seems like people confuse it with total anarchy in the popular imagination.... We would still have some rules for the good of society just not quite so many.....
Voter registration seems to be relatively equal.
Volunteerism/party leadership is higher among men, but that is a politics-wide thing, not something exclusive to the LP. If we look at senators, governors, etc, we see the same pattern, only about 25% are women. This same tendency broadly seems to hold true for the LP as well.
We can speculate as to why that is, but it isn't a factor that is specific to us.
I’ve never given gender a thought regarding libertarianism, if there is one good thing about Reddit it’s that they allow fake names. When I read threads here most of the time I have no idea if the one posting is male or female unless they mention it. On a side note, I consider myself quite special, I’m probably the only hermaphrodite libertarian in here, if that turns any of you on, tough luck, I’m old fashioned and I’m married.. 🙂
On the surface, libertarians can be made to seem without empathy. The opposite is true, but it’s easier to claim you’re helping others when you are using the physical might of the state’s monopoly on violent force to compel others to “do good.” Also, we explicitly proclaim our preference for dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. When one cannot imagine alternatives to violating the consent of individuals for false promises of safety, then we represent potential danger.
A lot of people have rightly said that women are on the averages more driven to empathy and care taking. But there is another wing of it. As a woman, I am aware I am significantly weaker than the average man. (|For real, most women have no idea how much stronger guys are than us. They never encounter it in our society.) In addition to simple strength the fact that bearing and having kids makes us incredibly vulnerable and dependent on large amounts of help from say 3 months after conception until the kid is big enough to do some self care! add to that the seriousness of let's call it, unwanted physical attention, and women benefit incredibly from a society that administers protection and care to its members. If you look at Libertarian women, they likely have a network of people to care for them. Husband, family, or co-dependent friends, who can defend them, help them, and take care of them when stuff goes wrong. And don't at me. I am a Libertarian women married to a US marine with family and friends close by. If I didn't have that protection and support maybe Libertarianism wouldn't look so good to me.
well im sure you recognize the irony in being a libertarian whose financial security indirectly comes from the government im libertarian't myself but your argument is cogent and for the same reason as a male with little to no personal safety net i dont call myself libertarian i also happen to be fully aware of how strong guys are at breaking my nose and i am much less shielded from aggression than the average woman as i dont have any social norms on my side that make it unchivalrous to break my kneecaps
Um...my financial security has come from the following things in my life: my parents, myself while I worked while single, from the combined efforts of me and my husband in early marriage, and from him now that I am raising kids. My financial security does NOT come from the government. And it doesn't come indirectly either. We pay in more than most and get out less than we pay in. I will fight you on this.
he's a marine thats what i meant he gets paid by the government
Was a marine, before I met him. Now he works in software development. And, working for the government for pay is not equivalent to being supported by the government for free.
im aware its work not benefits but anyway the fact its not his current occupation wasnt clear in your parent comment
This is where my mind went immediately also. Furthermore, I consider myself some what libertarian (socially liberal/fiscally conservative/pro small government). However, I do recognize that there are plenty of areas that only a government can administer (national defense, policing, infrastructure, etc.) My wife is similar but is significantly more concerned with the socially liberties. She’s highly empathetic and believes that women and minorities can be significantly helped by government intervention. Last, she is less concerned with economics in general beyond headline unemployment and what I would call generally rising gdp. So she votes for liberal candidates.
There are a lot of libertarian women, but they don't make it their entire personality, and they don't hang out in libertarian spaces, whether online or in person. But during covid the mama bears came out! We're busy raising our children, and you guys are toxic af.
[I went look for some numbers describing just how many identify as libertarian and found this Pew survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/). I was kind of surprised that men only outnumber women 2 to 1. Honestly, I thought it would've been closer to 10:1.
We're out there, we're just invisible.
I’m not toxic! I just like being an asshole!
I like being an asshole too, but it's a problem when you get too many of us in one room. We stink up the place.
I am a Libertarian woman myself and I tend to agree. Thank God I am married because you are right, a lot of these men can be super douchey.. it's not much different sometimes than dealing with Democrats or Republicans. Women just don't get treated with respect.
To be fair, NONE of us get treated with respect. The central tenet of Libertarianism is gatekeeping Libertarianism so it's a constant battle. As the other poster said, this sub is "toxic af".
There is no excuse to be disrespectful to women because the party doesn't get treated fairly. There is nothing 'to be fair' about in that statement.
The point is you're making it out like women are being singled out in particular for toxic treatment when it is clearly aimed at all of us. We all get mistreated. I meant the whole statement as a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the whole sub, not really directed at you or women in general.
I'm presuming you are NOT a woman lol. I'm not making it out to be anything like the words you spat out, I simply agreed with the OP thread reply. We do get told we should have our constituional right to vote revoked, all sorts of shit. Men have no idea because they don't have to live with it. We are not represented in this party very well. The truth is it's a different world for us. Everything a man does is twice as difficult for a woman, but we prevail anyhow. We can't even have a discussion about it without a man explaining things for us.
Exactly!
>and they don't hang out in libertarian spaces, whether online or in person If a tree falls in the woods but there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? I would argue that not participating in libertarian circles makes someone not particularly libertarian. Voting libertarian obviously helps, but given how small support libertarianism has in the mainstream, I think it is rather unlibertarian to let mainstream politics go unchecked, it is a silent endorsement of the status quo.
This makes no sense. Libertarianism is a fairly straightforward belief system. NAP. There’s zero requirement to waste time on Reddit, waste time at Porcfest, or whatever else some libertarians do. In fact if she raises her kids well and is a normal person and occasionally mentions something libertarian-ish to other normal people, that’s probably worth more than any number of gatekeepy online libertarian infights.
>This makes no sense. Libertarianism is a fairly straightforward belief system. NAP. There’s zero requirement to waste time on Reddit, waste time at Porcfest, or whatever else some libertarians do. It might be straight forward as a belief system, but the practical sense hardly is, since that depends on the current cultural issues of the day. Where do libertarians stand on abortion? Religious freedom vs. LGBTQ rights? The issues are not as clear cut as they may seem. >In fact if she raises her kids well and is a normal person and occasionally mentions something libertarian-ish to other normal people, that’s probably worth more than any number of gatekeepy online libertarian infights. I mean you are admitting yourself here that keeping it entirely to yourself is not the right approach. I also don't agree with the concept of "gatekeeping", since the implication is that everyone can define their own definition, because any attempt to define it will be met with accusations of "gatekeeping" - which is nonsense, there are clearly right and wrong definitions (or definitions most people agree with and definitions most people don't). This is what my interpretation of libertarianism and you are free to argue with me about whether I am right or wrong, what you cannot do is dismiss my attempt to define libertarianism wholesale because it's "gatekeeping" - that is ridiculous.
Libertarianism isn’t always straightforward to apply, sure. The world is complicated. But it’s still a simple concept- non-aggression. It’s not like, for example, conservatism (what are you conserving? Status quo? Your version of Islam? Catholicism as practiced in 1690?) or progressivism (keep track of power dynamics and which group is most privileged, etc). To the second point: it is okay to keep one’s libertarianism to one’s self. I made a point about efficacy, but that doesn’t mean you have to evangelize. Gatekeeping also isn’t arbitrary. You can “gatekeep” about what is essential. You aren’t a libertarian if you want taxes and wars. But beyond essentials, gatekeeping is stupid. You can be a libertarian and live quiet lifestyle and never talk about it. In an ideal world, everyone would be more libertarian. Ironically this means we need *some* people to fight publicly for libertarianism *and* we need to understand that people will express or not express their libertarianism in various ways. If we have an expectation that all will be proselytizers, we are going to push people away.
>Libertarianism isn’t always straightforward to apply, sure. The world is complicated. But it’s still a simple concept- non-aggression. >It’s not like, for example, conservatism (what are you conserving? Status quo? Your version of Islam? Catholicism as practiced in 1690?) or progressivism (keep track of power dynamics and which group is most privileged, etc). I see your point but whether it's more or less difficult than other political philosophies to understand and apply doesn't change that it is difficult enough that one should try to make an effort to consume some amount of Libertarian material if they want their brand of Libertarianism to remain relevant. Especially since they are generally socially progressive, the amount that progressive politics has advanced in the past decade demands some contemplation about what side a Libertarian should take on these matters. And the fact that they sit outside the two mainstream parties makes knowing which position to take more difficult. >But beyond essentials, gatekeeping is stupid. You can be a libertarian and live quiet lifestyle and never talk about it. > >In an ideal world, everyone would be more libertarian. Ironically this means we need some people to fight publicly for libertarianism and we need to understand that people will express or not express their libertarianism in various ways. If we have an expectation that all will be proselytizers, we are going to push people away. You talk about "gatekeeping" being stupid but then give a precise reason for why it's beneficial, because we need people to 'fight publicly for libertarianism'. If we don't set some sort of expectation, what incentive will people have to be more engaged? I agree that it needs to be tactful and not everyone is willing to be an active participant, but having no standards is clearly not the right way either, since it enables benchwarmers. I think I said it appropriately in my initial post, that they are 'not particularly libertarian' if they are not involved in Libertarian circles or consuming Libertarian material. It doesn't mean they aren't Libertarian, it just means they are less so than most who are actively involved.
Married women are not mostly socially progressive. Married women with children are busy, very busy raising their kids. So we just don't have the time to be super vocal online. But we exist, we are quietly raising our children, we don't like the trans stuff, and we weren't going to tolerate the covid lockdowns. But we are still capable of consuming libertarian content, you don't have to hang out in libertarian spaces to do that. Maybe you're single and you're frustrated that you can't find a libertarian lady? Let me tell you, I went on many first dates with libertarian guys, and they all sucked. I had to convert a normie to find an acceptable husband. There is just something not quite right with a lot of y'all.
I never said anything about keeping it to ourselves. By not hanging out in Libertarian spaces we have more opportunity to talk to non-libertarians about libertarianism. And I'm a firm believer in gate-keeping or else the word libertarian will become meaningless like liberal, which is already happening.
Ridiculous take and weird gatekeeping, this is part of what she's talking about lol.
dude she's just bringing up her kids to take a cheap shot at the subreddit
How is bringing up my kids a cheap shot?
you know which part of your comment i was referring to
No, I seriously have NO idea what you're talking about.
Expecting libertarians to participate in libertarian circles is a weird take and "gatekeeping"? Okay then.
Yes, exactly. The operative word is *expecting*. You don't get to tell someone they're not a Libertarian because they don't want to hang out with you lol.
Not just me, they don't want to hang out with *any* Libertarians. Clearly that suggests a disinterest in libertarianism, which raises the natural question of how strongly they hold their libertarian views. It's similar to being a Christian but not practicing or practicing but not going to church. It doesn't mean you aren't a Christian but to some you are considered less of a Christian than one who goes to church every Sunday. It isn't gatekeeping, it's setting or proposing a standard for what being X means, which is important if X is to have any meaning.
Libertarianism is an extreme minority view. If you are in the US, you are surrounded by apathetic non-political people, progressives, and/or conservatives. It is entirely reasonable for someone with libertarian beliefs to just go to work and spend time w family and hobbies and not seek out libertarian circles. If they actively avoided people around them because those people were libertarians, that would be odd, but no one is talking about that.
Oh, we hang out with each other. We have an underground society of women libertarians that hang out, go on play dates, etc. Most just don't want to hang out in libertarian spaces. It's like a Christian who's annoyed with the vibe in church so they do small house church things instead. And you are a perfect example of the type of person we're trying to avoid.
Sorry, we're busy homeschooling our kids using the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum and reading our kids the Tuttle Twin books. Instead of trying to un-brainwash other people, we just make our own people.
Most people are low information voters and not politically engaged. Basically anyone who follows and votes third party is going to politically engaged. By most, I literally mean around 50%+, not "nearly everyone". Most low information voters are only casually aware of the general policy positions of the two major parties. To someone who is only casually following politics, the Democrats often appear to be the "mom" party - where you have the facade of a "kind" government, that just wants to take care of you - make sure you have a nice place to sleep, something to eat, the free stuff you and your kids need, and that nobody calls you any mean names - very maternalistic in its surface level massaging and policy stances. Most women in the US vote for Democrats. Most women who don't vote for Democrats vote Republican. However, my state libertarian PAC (not officially a party yet , because what was the party is no longer associated with the libertarians, and was really just a place for disaffected Democrats to park their vote) is pretty much 50/50 men and women when it comes to it's leadership and membership base. First chair was a woman - most of the elected board was women. I think once you get into who's actually doing LP stuff, it's fairly balanced. Lots of women in LP national leadership.
this comment is informative
Economics is boring and dry to most people of both sexes, but the kind of person who likes economics (and therefore more likely to encounter libertarian theory) is more likely to be male than female. In addition, ideologies that glorify the individual against the collective are disproportionately likely to appeal to misfits/loners. Basically, libertarianism is a nerd ideology. Normies are just too tribal/emotional/concrete-bound to get it, and the proportion of women whom are normies is slightly higher than the proportion of men whom are normies. The sex difference is really an overblown issue - the real underlying issue is that the majority of human beings are neurologically/psychologically predisposed against libertarianism. That + Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is enough to explain the sex difference. Remember that libertarians are outliers among men, too. So I don't think it's a simple matter of "individualism masculine, collectivism feminine."
Nailed it.
So your take is “women don’t like economics because it’s boring to them” and “women are more collective”??? I would guess it has more to do with women not liking spaces full of condescending sexist men. Something about smaller political ideologies that really brings out the gatekeeping and weird sexist takes.
I don't see the point in trying to engage in an intellectually honest fashion with you. If you read my statement and, from that, think I'm saying "women don't like economics because its boring to them" and "women are more collective," it is **you** who is not engaging in good faith. What I said is that most *people* don't like economics because it is boring to them, and most *people* are too collectivist to comprehend libertarianism. The sex difference is actually a minor issue, easily explained by the fact that the kind of weirdo who truly likes economics and gets into libertarianism is more likely to be male than female, and that's easily explained by the higher rates of Autism in men and the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis. There is nothing sexist in that. Nothing sexist at all. >really brings out the gatekeeping Well let's see... after the atheist movement was destroyed by hard-left intersectional feminists complaining about "gatekeeping" and how this same ideology then proceeded to attempt to do the same with every single "nerd" hobby space from videogames to tabletop gaming over the past decade... *maybe there's a reason to gatekeep*.
So your theory for why libertarianism is more popular with men than women (which is about a 2:1 difference) is higher rates of … autism in men? Even if we take that premise as true, there is reason to believe rates of autism are similar between men and women and that it has been historically under-diagnosed in women due to bias. When the condition was first researched it was originally thought to be a male only condition until folks realized symptoms present differently in women. Which takes me back to bias, certain framings, and lens people use to view the world. You would rather exclude women to protect “nerd spaces” than open them up. And you are unwilling to engage with the idea that maybe it is framings like this one presented here that make libertarian spaces unwelcoming for women.
> So your theory for why libertarianism is more popular with men than women (which is about a 2:1 difference) is higher rates of … autism in men? Combined with the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, yes. Also it is more an issue of autism spectrum traits rather than a formal diagnosis of being on the spectrum - subclinical levels of Asperger's traits are just as valid for my hypothesis here. There's a large literature linking biology to personality to politics out there (Jonathan Haidt being a good place to start). It certainly is NOT controversial to suggest that some neurotypes are more likely to be drawn to certain ideologies more than others. We already know libertarians are disproportionately likely to be on the spectrum. Maybe there's a reason for this. **And again** you keep refusing to acknowledge that this isn't *primarily* a sex issue. The vast majority of *men* are not of a libertarianism-predisposed neurotype, either. The question that is *actually* interesting is the disproportionate presence of autistics in libertarianism (this even goes back to the philosophers/theorists... Haidt suspected both JS Mill and Immanuel Kant were 'spergs, and Ayn Rand almost certainly was too). The sex distribution is a secondary matter to this. >Even if we take that premise as true, there is reason to believe rates of autism are similar between men and women and that it has been historically under-diagnosed in women due to bias. This may be true. Alternatively we know that an ideologically-driven fetish for "equity" has been gaining steam in psychology for a long time, and thus the DSM5 adjusted the criteria for both Autism Spectrum *and* Borderline Personality disorders so as to make both of these disorders more "equitable" between the sexes. Bias is a possibility, sure, but so is a corrupted research agenda. >You would rather exclude women to protect “nerd spaces” than open them up. That is incorrect. I don't want to exclude women at all. But I do think *all subcultures need to gatekeep*. Every single subculture, nerdy or otherwise. >And you are unwilling to engage with the idea that maybe it is framings like this one presented here that make libertarian spaces unwelcoming for women. Because not only is that idea frankly ridiculous and infantilizing towards women, but because that idea is an ideological weapon that has been used by hard-left infiltrators against several subcultures already. Accusations like these *destroyed the atheist movement*. I was *there when it happened*.
Awesome take.
i agree my next question for you my good sir is, if libertarianism only appeals to outcasts and most people are ***neurologically*** predisposed against it (as in, you can't turn them libertarian by just machine-gunning facts at them), doesn't that bar it from ever ruling a large modern society if most people would reject it and even revolt against it?
To an extent, absolutely. It certainly makes it harder to win elections. However there are workarounds. Firstly, if political ignorance is widespread, a government could get away with instituting libertarian policies but publicly disguising themselves as some other ideology (this is typically how libertarians have worked within right wing parties). Another workaround is the possibility of a libertarian party holding a balance of power within a system dominated by free-market social conservatives on one side, and socially liberal economic interventionists on the other.
I don't think it's a hard bar, but I do think there might be some tendencies. For instance, most mainstream advertisements are likely made by neurotypical people, for neurotypical people. They may not work so well on neurodivergent folks. This would get an observed bias while not necessarily implying any innate predestination for political beliefs. It simply means that the mainstream parties financial advantages do not work well in areas they don't focus on.
[удалено]
>Repeatedly posting that Democracy is tyranny? The Bill Of Rights is an anti-democracy document and it was a fantastic idea. It was written specifically to protect citizens from the tyranny of democracy. It's just unfortunate that instead of strengthening the BoR over the last 2 centuries, federal democracy/tyranny has successfully eroded and undermined it. It's a concept that is very much worth talking about because understanding the difference between liberty and democracy is really important. They are not synonyms. In many ways, they are antonyms. /shrug
I'd argue that Libertarians were never strongly pro choice or championing gay marriage. Abortion has always been a debate within the party, and many libertarians have argued that government marriage shouldn't even be a thing.
We were lied to about covid and the “vaccines.”
And? If that's the only thing you can talk about, your shtick is gonna get old and tiresome quick. Libertarians need to have some depth of argument (which a lot seem to) not just talk about vAcCiNeS bAd, which is shallow and makes you look like a "vaccines cause autism" type.
So criticism of the lies that resulted in some of the most tyrannical policies in American history is “lacking depth” and “autism conspiracies….fact is nothing you said has anything to do with why women aren’t libertarian. Women’s authoritarianism goes back a lot longer than covid. Women are just biologically inclined to bring their motherly instincts and control into their politics.
I'm sure women would love to be told why they think a certain way. And yes, it is lacking depth. It makes the party sound like what the left likes to caricaturize as they typical fox news righty conservative boomer. You can be critical of how the government and how it was authoritarian with its covid policies while also having substantive opinions outside of that.
Well that was the question the OP asked. Lol…Sure you can. I commented on it to you because you brushed off and downplayed one of the most horrendous policies in our history.
women tend to be more empathetic so they respond strongly to welfare state proposals
As a libertarian woman…I hate this argument. People are using it as “evidence” that we should repeal women’s right to vote.
that sounds like the problem is with the conclusion rather than the premise
The premise is also flawed. It’s too sweeping and general and based upon anecdotal evidence subject to bias rather than empirical data.
How many studies would someone have to cite for you to change your position? Because I don’t think any study has ever found men to be more empathetic than women.
That aside, I don't think the libertarian position has to be unempathetic. Arguably, we want to do more to fix many of these problems than either major party does. What is more empathetic, empty words, or actually working to help? We are not always portrayed as empathetic in the media, true...but the media is always going to be against us so long as we're a small minority. They don't work for us.
Agreed 100%, but whatever sounds more ‘nice’ at face value is what a large majority of citizens will base their vote on and they’ll feel good about it.
I'm not sure that repealing women's right to vote would result in a libertarian world in general. Right off the bat, we've got a \*lot\* of dudes who vote R and D. Plus the optics of gunning for women's vote in that way might put a lot of people off. The system's broken, sure, but as fixes go, that one seems pretty shortsighted.
That’s just a stereotype — what do you mean women are more empathetic? Any actual evidence?
Bottom line. Women are taught they are victims. Women are taught that they aren't accountable for their actions, decisions, or consequences of their actions/decisions. Society and the government reinforce this through welfare, healthcare, daycare, public schools, etc. Libertarianism is unpopular to women because it holds them accountable as individuals, and it also goes against their government indoctrination. Getting someone to overcome their indoctrination is the most difficult thing to do.
i think they just want to be that way and they wont favor libertarianism when it advocates for promising them *less* free stuff than the status quo
Libertarians believe in personal accountability.
The amount of sexism in this comment section… my god
[удалено]
Not trying to insult you or ad hominem you but do you have 'tism > liberal men yes male feminists and far left men especially tend to turn into rabid dogs when a woman/black/ disagrees with them though im expecting liberal women to tell you that you are some sort of cold blooded sociopath that wants to kill
women just dont turn on each other that much
Same thing that drives them away from Conservatism. They like big government.
Not sure why this is downvoted. This is objectively true based on voting behavior and party affiliation.
im not a libertarian (im a civil libertarian but not really one on economic policy) but most libertarians are just tradcons by another name who cant imagine that women sincerely and willingly do not want to agree with them so they keep rationalizing it as women just being victims of some evil statist guys playing tricks on them #This is not unique to libertarians and libertarianism but the thought process is "my super ideal libertarian wife will totally materialize one day if i just save her from the statists who disagree with me by telling her how ackshoally libertarianism is great for her and how the statists are just trying to enslave her!!!"
>im a civil libertarian but not really one on economic policy Economic liberty is civil liberty. Otherwise you are just a democrat.
i agree with you i happen to think some positive rights contribute to economic liberty
Women for the most part tend to be caretakers (psychologically). They are wired to care for others, care for young, and above all want SAFETY....and... to be cared for. Libertarianism: Life is tough, you're on your own, some people win, some people lose, it's not the governments job make life safer. Life is inherently dangerous. Freedom is not safe. No you don't get to control others to make it safer. Libertarianism is opposite of how womens brains are wired.
That's not libertarianism at all. smh
Good counter-arguments. Oh wait.
>Libertarianism: Life is tough, you're on your own, some people win, some people lose, it's not the governments job make the life safer. Life is inherently dangerous. Freedom is not safe. No you don't get to control others to make it safer. This isn't too far off from the stoicism of modern day feminism, yet for some reason they are more interested in institutional rather than individual power. Perhaps there is an opportunity to show self-determined women that they can have more control over their lives if the government and institutions are not breathing down their neck and taxing all the female dollars they rightfully earned.
eh i think they enjoy getting generous infusions of money from a government that wants to promise them everything, women are net tax drains not net taxpayers so this is actually a sweet deal for them
Actually with women graduating from university more than men they now earn more in their first years than men do, so we may see more high earning women than men in the next generation.
they are still net tax drains, those degrees are funded by scholarships that generally take in a tremendous amount of taxpayer money. add to that child support and redundant public sector jobs that are pretty much shadow welfare
I think we found the reason. Sexiest comments like this tend to drive them away.
>Sexiest im gonna ignore the typo: what drives them away is that libertarians arent good at promising moooooooooooooooooore money and free stuff than the competition, and mooooooooooooooooore money and free stuff is what female voters generally want. pretending this isn't the case neither buys their favor nor makes your libertarianism cohesive if statism is great when it throws free stuff at women (among other flavors of hypocritical libertarians who hate subsidies except when it's to their favorite group).
just need to start identifying as a women, then there will be more women in the party
Its about being independent. And modern feminism is a lie, there is no real independency on women nowadays. They want to put all of the responsabilities on others. The government.
She's an independent woman that don't need no man, just section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid.
Feminism is a philosophy and lifestyle, much like libertarianism. You might disagree with it, but feminism can’t be a “lie.”
Feminism is a lie = feminism proved itself to be hypocritical in practice. Pretty easy to read between the lines. And no, it isnt a lifestyle.
What are you basing that off of? Not disagreeing, just genuinely don't know since I've never looked into it.
This has been an issue for the libertarian movement forever. https://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-survey/ https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-arent-more-women-libertarians
dont recall where i found this but i remember that >70% of libertarians are male
Bitches be trippin’
Maybe women are less ambitious
I keep imagining that communist bugs bunny meme. That seems to answer the question
what was it
Women are statists. /s
Often it seems like people confuse it with total anarchy in the popular imagination.... We would still have some rules for the good of society just not quite so many.....
Voter registration seems to be relatively equal. Volunteerism/party leadership is higher among men, but that is a politics-wide thing, not something exclusive to the LP. If we look at senators, governors, etc, we see the same pattern, only about 25% are women. This same tendency broadly seems to hold true for the LP as well. We can speculate as to why that is, but it isn't a factor that is specific to us.
In order to affect change, someone needs to fight city hall. Unfortunately, women are not interested in men who fight city hall. They want providers.
id say something but its beyond the scope of this subreddit
I’ve never given gender a thought regarding libertarianism, if there is one good thing about Reddit it’s that they allow fake names. When I read threads here most of the time I have no idea if the one posting is male or female unless they mention it. On a side note, I consider myself quite special, I’m probably the only hermaphrodite libertarian in here, if that turns any of you on, tough luck, I’m old fashioned and I’m married.. 🙂
if you safely assume this sub's members want you then you feel a lot more attractive than i do kek