Yeah, it must be for some sexist, bullshit reason.  I'll bet it could have nothing to do with the disrespect for women that I have seen in the comments on the bigger Libertarian blogs (i.e., Reason's Hit & Run and The Agitator) or the fact that women's issues that are 100% consistant with the LP's platform (i.e., abortion) are ignored, treated as if they are solely the domain of the Left and Democrats, or are argued about. 

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that must be my emotional, illogical brain speaking!  Oh my, what's this about free markets?  Is that, like, where I can go to get free shoes?

Why not try moving into the damn 21st century?

Seriously, dude?  The paternalistic bullshit and refusal to treat women like your equals is exactly why you can't get women into the party.

As a radical feminist and a left-libertarian, shit like this makes it really hard for me to defend my political viewpoints to others and makes it damn near impossible to get anyone to see my side. 

But don't worry, I'm glad us silly little womenfolk will be so happy that you're looking out for us!  Gee golly gosh!  Thanks so much!

The feminist movement went awry when it drifted from one of equal opportunity and individual rights to equal outcome and socialism. It isn't a matter of "smarts," or "superiority," but specialization and group proclivity. Collectively, men and women differ significantly in their strengths and weaknesses. (women are on average more emotionally intelligent and intuitive than men, for example)

The result of the egalitarian, denialist feminist indoctrination of the last few decades has been a generation of guys afraid to act like guys, and women who hate most of us for being fakers. Yes, some men need to get over their petty sexism and realize women are here to stay in the professional world. But the ultra-PC, anti-masculinity "feminism" that pervades academia today is just as ugly an ideology.

(though I am one of those pesky pro-lifers)

LULZ.

That explains everything.  Have fun buying guns and smack at Walmart all while trying to restrict my freedom.  Because certainly, when you want things that could harm yourself or others, it's a matter of freedom, but when it's me, I'm just a baby killing whore.

No, Joshua, that was a commentary on libertarianism, in that we want legal guns, and legal drugs, purchasable at any national retailer. Would it be better if I had said Target or CVS?  I would think that Walmart would be preferred given that so many libertarians cream their panties over the company....while forgetting, of course, that the corporation is the biggest "welfare queen" there is.

But thanks, I'm glad you could prove my point about sticking to stereotypes.  Cause, you know, the whole pro-choice = liberal democrat = hating the rural poor isn't old meme or anything.  No, it's not.

----

Matt, I received your friend request on Facebook, but if you want to discuss anything with me, I'm not doing it on Facebook, where I have personal info listed.  (It's truly /not/ a personal thing.)  I attempted to message you through FB, but it is not allowing me to send you a message even though there is a "send a message" link for you. 

If you could drop me an email at drunkenatheist@gmail.com, that would be great.  I literally have the message copied & pasted, so if you email me when I'm online, I can have a message to you within 5 minutes.

Thanks!

<i>you are accusing me of being something I am not</i>

What in my comments led you to believe I was accusing you of sexism?  I was reacting primarily more to your commenters.  As for what I mean by "antifeminism," see the link.

Matt,

[I]t is my understanding that many of your prominent Mises Institute colleagues have expressed far more socially conservative views than I have, staunchly defending the "traditional family." You certainly wouldn't condemn them all as "sexists," would you?

Roderick Long is remarkably polite, especially with people he interacts with in person on a regular basis (for obvious, prudential reasons), and to a lesser extent with people associated with the Mises Institute and those who write articles and blogposts for Lew Rockwell's website. Roderick does occasionally call a person sexist, but usually he reserves this sort of name calling for people he is unlikely to ever interact with directly; celebrities, for instance. He outlined some reasons for hating the sin and not the sinner here:

I don’t mean to be projecting a holier-than-thou tone here. I’ve argued elsewhere that libertarians shouldn’t assume an air of moral superiority over statists – first, because statism is “a form of spiritual blindness that can, and does, infect even those who are largely sincere and well-meaning,” and second, because a commitment to libertarianism is only part of virtue, not the whole of it, so that even if we “score higher” than our statist neighbours on this point, that’s no guarantee that they don’t outscore us on others. These points apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present issue. I certainly don’t claim that those who defend traditional sex roles are evil! But that traditional sex roles themselves are evil – and evil for much the same reasons that statism is evil – I continue to maintain. 

Roderick has indeed condemned certain socially conservative views which defend traditional gender roles as sexist. The quote excerpted above comes from an exchange between him and Brad Edmonds, a columnist who wrote some socially conservative, sexist articles for Lew Rockwell's website. In the essay Roderick wrote with Charles Johnson (who you might know as Rad Geek) linked to above, he criticizes the views of one of his Mises Institute colleague, Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

Male supremacy has its own ideological rationalizations, its own propaganda, its own expropriation, and its own violent enforcement; although it is often in league with the male-dominated state, male violence is older, more invasive, closer to home, and harder to escape than most forms of statism. This means that libertarians who are serious about ending all forms of political violence need to fight, at least, a two-front war, against both statism and male supremacy; an adequate discussion of what this insight means for libertarian politics requires much more time than we have here. But it is important to note how the writings of some libertarians on the family—especially those who identify with the “paleolibertarian” political and cultural project—have amounted to little more than outright denial of male violence. Hans Hermann Hoppe, for example, goes so far as to indulge in the conservative fantasy that the traditional “internal layers and ranks of authority” in the family are actually bulwarks of “resistance vis-a-vis the state” (Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem § IV). The “ranks of authority” in the family, of course, means the pater familias, and whether father-right is, at a given moment in history, mostly in league with or somewhat at odds with state prerogatives, the fact that it is so widely enforced by the threat or practice of male violence means that trying to enlist it in the struggle against statism is much like enlisting Stalin in order to fight Hitler—no matter who wins, we all lose.

Here he criticizes the views of another LRC columnist, Larry Beane, and here he criticizes Mr. Libertarian himself, Murray Rothbard.

I am not as polite as Roderick for a variety of reasons, some personal, some tactical. Sometimes goals are better achieved not by convincing flies with the honey of reason, but by shaming them with vinegar of social ostricism. One of the great moral advances of our society over the last few decades is that anti-black racial bigotry is no longer acceptable behavior among polite company.  There are holdouts, but social pressure isolates and marginalizes them, and this is a good thing. In order to maintain this social pressure, people need to be reminded that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and one way to do that is by directly shunning them - that is, by calling bigotry for what it is directly, and sometimes calling a bigot a bigot. The wisdom of this tactic depends on the context: Whether or not someone with bigoted views is open to reason, whether the view is held intentionally and knowlingly, how far society has already advanced in excluding that view from polite discourse.

Most of the criticism you've received so far in this thread is from a marketing perspective: If you are curious why fewer women than men identify as libertarian, you might want to consider the possibility that many women are turned off by those who suggest that women are too emotional or not as logical as men, or insulted by those who suggest that women should become libertarian in order to preserve the sanity of libertarian men, or offended by the notion that you want to control their uteruses. Try to put yourself in a woman's shoes and ask yourself if you would be attracted to a political movement or ideology that insulted your intelligence as a man, implied that a good reason to join was not merely the inherent truth or justice of the cause but the utility you would provide to existing (possibly not sane?) members, and wanted to control what you did with your penis because every sperm is sacred.

Tough sell?

You collaberated and/or were complicit with a false, stereotypical, and defamatory story about me  and other YALers on "eng feminists," accusing many of us of bigotry. (see below) I expect an apology on that if you want me to listen to your commentary (on this thread as well as other website) in the future. (though don't worry about a pending 'lawsuit,' as I'm a freakin' college kid, and as a libertarian, don't believe 'libel' is a crime)

http://eng.feministblogs.org/tag/matt-cockerill/

All that aside, it would be more constructive if we continued this exchange privately rather than in this thread, which is why I tried to add you as my Facebook friend. The rest of my "grievances" I plan on outlining to you privately in the email you posted.

FTR, I appreciate the fact that you have a libertarian blog on which you're not afraid to give your opinion. We need all the libertarians (left,  right, feminist, evangelical, 'drunk atheist,' etc) we can get. But please try to be fairer to me and YAL in the future.

Matt