Where the Boys Are

Oct 22, 2009 at 7:09 PM

By Kelse Moen

Do you like long walks on the beach, anti-Fed rallies, and Austrian praxeology? If so, here's a new resource for you: Ron Paul Singles, a dating site promising to put the "love" back in "rEVOLution."

Well, maybe its a good resource. The site's homepage lists the following statistics:

Total Male Members: 607
Total Female Members: 156

That's nationwide, which means that, if you are a straight male, the chance of finding a compatible "Ron Paul single" in your area is virtually nil. Not that this is very surprising. The general paucity of libertarian women has been addressed before, although the attempts to do so tend to bring out social Marxist responses that libertarians are just too insensitive to "women's issues" or that libertarians are somehow socially inept.

But what are these "women's issues?" (Aside from abortion, in which I can see viable libertarian arguments for both sides.) They most often center around issues like enforcing equal pay for equal work, ending workplace discrimination, or providing more funding to Planned Parenthood -- all of which are programs which would increase the scope of government and to which principled libertarians should be opposed. Moreover, why can't private property rights and constitutionalism be "women's issues?" It seems very patronizing to say that in order to attract women, a political movement must give them some goodies, rather than appealing to them on a philosophical level.

I recently read "We Are Doomed" by John Derbyshire. Therein, Derbyshire argues that this is the way it always has been; the ancient playwright Aristophanes even addressed the male-female political divide in his play "The Assemblywomen," when the women of Athens take power and turn their polis into an egalitarian, socialist state.

So maybe the roots of the problem go too deep for us to find a simple solution. But it is worth thinking about: how can any movement continue when half of the population -- the half that spends the most time raising and teaching our children -- is either indifferent to its ideals or actively opposed to them?

Posted in:

Blog Policy
Login or register to post comments

Kelse,

You make some good points. I haven't given this much thought (even though you think I would, being a girl) but I think it is a cultural thing. You are right however, don't patronize women for not being libertarian because they are not receiving "goodies". Don't patronize men either. We must appeal to men and women philosophically.

Submitted by Rachel Kania on October 22, 2009.

The problem is that this issue is"hallowed ground." Not by most women (or men), but by a loud and nosy PC, "cosmo libertarian" fringe.

I've decided to leave this issue in wiser hands, personally. (LOLA)

Submitted by Matt Cockerill on October 22, 2009.

That's probably a good idea. I read some of the reactions to your earlier post. The problem is that the PC libertarians assume as a first principle that any lack of women must automatically be the men's fault and that to even suggest that there could be some other cause is sexist.

Submitted by Kelse Moen on October 23, 2009.

Great post Kelse and thanks Matt!

The Ladies of Liberty Alliance will be seeking to find the common ground between libertarians, men and women, in order to bring more women into the mainstream. Other issues that are very strongly spoken about among female libertarians is HOMESCHOOLING and NUTRITION (FDA stuff). One might say these are "women issues" even though I would disagree saying it's stereotypical to have "soft" issues be for women. Many women who are involved in the movement are interested in economics and foreign policy. It is a very strong libertarian woman that runs http://antiwar.com

LOLA will hopefully even out the numbers in the future to bring more credibility and even just MORE PEOPLE into this grassroots movement.

Submitted by Megan Duffield on October 23, 2009.

Indeed--part of the collectivist mindset engrained in public education and policy requires that men think, act, and generally be different from women in both public and private spheres; feminism, queer theory, Af-Am studies, and other niche disciplines have been plying a subtle categorization game onto unwary students and policymakers for decades now.

I support any and all efforts to break down perceived barriers to communication, especially in issues previously regarded as being the desmene of a particular gender or race. Rather than being "pro life" or "pro choice" on abortion, a compromise might be "pro contraception!" Equal pay is an issue Walter Block has raised many times, noting that single childless women make 95%-100% of single childless men's pay; the dividing factor being not gender preference, but family preference. Many women laudably consider their family's welfare before their career, and often switch positions or settle into steady jobs with fewer hours than the high-stress positions that their male counterparts continue to occupy (absentee fathers are still more socially acceptable, unfortunately).

So, in short, people of all genders, persuasions, ethnicities, etc. will have to give up their portion of the collectivist dogma that pervades academia and politics, instead opting for ethics and philosophies that rely on individual ability and rationality; quite a tall order, since belonging to a group (even a schismatic one) is still a very human desire...