Libertarianism

Elizabeth Nolan Brown on the Allegedly Elusive Libertarian Woman

Plus: how to promote social norms without injecting state violence into them.

|

Students for Liberty/Facebook

On the latest Libertarianism.org podcast, I talk with the Cato Institute's Aaron Ross Powell and Trevor Burrus about the storied lack of libertarian women, whether this gender balance is shifting, and ways that so-called women's issues can be approached from a libertarian perspective. We also discuss whether there's something inherent in feminism that makes it pro-government, what a libertarian feminism looks like, how to promote societal norms without injecting state violence into them, and issues such as abortionsex work, and censorship. Links jump to specific sections; whole thing below: 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

135 responses to “Elizabeth Nolan Brown on the Allegedly Elusive Libertarian Woman

  1. The reason why the Libertarian woman seems so elusive is because the modern feminist movement is nothing more then a front for progressivism which believes in using state violence as a way to achieve its goals. I’have a good friend who is a libertarian and has a lot of feminist beliefs but whenever she tried to level with the feminists on campus they would treat her like shit.

    It’s good that authors such as yourself and Cathy Young are fighting the good fight despite a huge backlash from progressive feminists.

    1. Feminism really is owned by socialists, communists and progressives. I would argue that there is no libertarian feminism because there is no need for it. Libertarianism embraces individuals as the basic social and political unit, it pushes for individual autonomy and equality before the law. Libertarianism is for anyone not hooked up to a hive-mind, there’s no need create distinct ethnic, gender, or religious camps within libertarianism to promote their interests. Libertarianism promotes the interests of everyone equally, quite unlike every -ism on the left.

      There is no truly libertarian feminism just like there is no libertarian progressivism et cetera.

    2. “Feminists” make up a tiny portion of all women, even when you narrow it to politically active or interested women. Why aren’t more conservative women libertarian? Why aren’t politically moderate women, who laugh at activist feminists, libertarian?

      Feminist/progressive hectoring can influence some people, but I’d wager that most politically interested Americans don’t experience it. They’re not active on Twitter or care what some idiot on Tumblr says, nor do they go to any demonstrations or events where they’d be shamed or attacked.

      1. In the last 40 years, the majority of high-IQ female college grads identify as non-feminists. The shift becomes increasingly dramatic for high-IQ female college grads since 1980, and it’s esp. clear after 1990. Yes, I know IQ’s are very racist, elitist, classist, ableist, etc. Nevertheless, as C. Paglia wrote, after enactment of the Civil Rights Act, the road was wide open for the smartest, most capable, and most ambitious young women, especially Caucasians from high SES families, to become successful doctors, lawyers, astronauts, research scientists, accountants, CEOs, and engineers. Inferior, 2nd rate intellects, finding calculus, chemistry and physics curricula too “phalocentric,” escaped into less demanding womyns’ studies majors, imbibed gender victim ideology, & became as journalists, civil servants, public school teachers, and professional liberal activists. Sadly, these dimwits control the contemporary feminist agenda. Whenever intelligent women attempt to participate and redirect the aims of the national organization of women and/or other feminist political blocs, these new voices are outvoted ? if not shouted down — by frowning, humorless, dogmatic shrews. There could, in theory, be significant overlap between feminism and libertarianism but, in modern political terms, these two groups will never share more than a tangential concord on fringe issues. The Singularity will have come and gone long before this political schism could ever be bridged.

  2. How the hell did you find 4 for the pic!?!?!!

    1. You never heard of paid spokesmodels?

      1. I still don’t see any cars….

    2. Photoshop.

  3. Because the LP panders to conservatives who oppose reproductive freedom. You can’t call yourself a friend of liberty if you want to build a police state to monitor each womb.

    1. Reproductive freedom? You mean the freedom where I pay for the mistakes of women (and men) I have never met at the point of a gun? Man, I sure do LOVE that freedom!

      1. No. This goes back to the Griswold case. The Paleos didn’t like that ruling nor the right to privacy. See R. Paul.

        1. he Paleos didn’t like that ruling nor the right to privacy.

          There’s a right to privacy? Quick, someone tell the NSA!

      2. Best to ignore Teh Weigel. It’s off it’s meds at the moment and incapable of reason, logic, or understanding.

        1. It is 8% short on meds? Or has it not had a meltdown like this since 2010?

    2. To Peak Derp and beyond!

      1. Speaking of Cro-Magnon libertarians…

        1. I’m a little rusty on my paleontology but isn’t a Cro-Magnon just another name for a modern human?

          1. Shriek just tried to insult sarcasmic by calling him a tougher human with a larger brain capacity.

            GG, PB. I’m sure that really stings.

            Current scientific literature prefers the term European early modern humans (EEMH), to the term ‘Cro-Magnon,’ which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43,000 years before present.

            Cro-Magnons were robustly built and powerful. The body was generally heavy and solid with a strong musculature. The forehead was fairly straight rather than sloping like in Neanderthals, and with only slight browridges. The face was short and wide. The chin was prominent. The brain capacity was about 1,600 cubic centimetres (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern humans.

            1. KDN,

              I am fairly certain that almost anyone has larger brain capacity than Statist Lightworkerplug – at least 8% more.

            2. He’s so derpiliscious that even when he tries to insult me he pays me a compliment. What a derp.

              1. Sarcasmic,

                Does this mean you’ll have to redesign the interior of your dwelling to reflect what was in style in the Old-Old Country of approximately 43,000 years ago?

                1. Redesign?

    3. “Freedom” = “getting someone else to pay for it” rather than “no restriction on you buying it for yourself.”

      Nice to be able to just make up your own definitions. You win every argument that way. You’re a genius, with “genius” meaning “profoundly dishonest tard.”

      1. I am pro-choice. No one mentioned government payments for such services – which I am opposed to in general.

        1. OK, then you’re just a liar then. That simplifies things.

    4. Dave Weigel: Defender of Kermit Gosnell’s right to become a millionaire!

      Damned libertarian of you, Weigel. Keep it up as an example to all of us!!!

    5. Because the LP panders to conservatives who oppose reproductive freedom. You can’t call yourself a friend of liberty if you want to build a police state to monitor each womb.

      Save the ‘war on womynz’ rhetoric for when your drumming up votes at the next meeting of retards anonymous.

      1. Ask mark Uterus how that turned out.

      2. the LP panders to conservatives who oppose reproductive freedom

        By being pro-choice?

        Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

        http://www.lp.org/platform

        1. How many LP candidates have not been solidly in favor of abortion rights? Maybe Bob Barr was pro-life, and Paul back in ’88, but the LP would probably do slightly better if it did start pandering to the pro-life crowd.

    6. Re: Peter Caca,

      Because the LP panders to conservatives who oppose reproductive freedom.

      Yeah, that must be it.

      Idiot.

    7. Lol, where is that in the Libertarian Party platform? You mendacious trolling douchebag.

  4. I think that you need not look past Postrel on this. There are very few libertarian women because those guys in the reason comment section are “jerks”.

    1. Someone should tell Marshall than Ken Shultz has hacked into his account.

      1. Nah, Ken probably thinks that it is a bad thing. I actually think it is funny as hell that Postrel has such thin skin, apparently.

        Cunt. Cunt. Cunt. There, now you know it isn’t Ken.

        1. Thin skin and terrible reading comprehension.

          Still a better editor than Gillespie, though.

          1. Still a better editor than Gillespie, though

            Yes but I consider that a pretty low bar.

        2. *squints*

          Yeah, I think it is Marshall alright.

      2. Sharon Presley made a similar argument a couple of months back:

        http://www.libertarianism.org/…..omen-redux

        It’s a very staunch defense of the idea that feminism and libertarianism are compatible. But she also points out that there is frequent hostility to female libertarians. Much of her evidence is anecdotal – which it really has to be – but I think that is important because anybody looking into libertarianism (or any ideology) is going to first encounter it in an anecdotal form.

        1. I do not see now feminism and libertarianism can in any way be compatible. The former relies almost exclusively on the state, which should be anathema to libertarians. There is almost nothing from the feminist camp that does not involve some use of govt force to accomplish a goal.

          1. Feminism is also collectivist which is the opposite of Libertarianism. Pretty tough to espouse individual rights when you insist on judging people based upon their genitalia.

          2. There are still people who are actual feminists – i.e. people who believe in equal treatment regardless of gender.

            1. You lost me Jordan. If you believe in equality regardless of sex, why would you name yourself after one of them? While you can certainly call yourself whatever you like, it is nonsensical to pick one of two sexes as your identifier and then claim you see them equally.

            2. Well, unless you want to claim one can be both libertarian and collectivist (which I guess is theoretically possible), that still runs into a problem. From an individualist perspective, why should anyone be concerned about the relative status of one collective versus another (And by the way, the term you were looking for was sex. Gender is a term used to discuss grammar.)

            3. That is not what actual feminists believe.

          3. Why would feminism rely on the state?

        2. she also points out that there is frequent hostility to female libertarians.

          By feminists? Certainly.

          By libertarians? No. Aside from jokes in poor taste, what I have seen is that female libertarians are treated pretty much like male libertarians. If she thinks being treated like a guy (that is, being treated like someone who can stand up to a little rough language) is “hostility”, then I got nuthin.

          1. I have never understood the “We are equals, now treat us like delicate flowers” argument.

        3. From the link:

          Both in my position as Executive Director of the Association of Libertarian Feminists (ALF) and in just general activism, I have been hearing stories of women ignored, hit on, or otherwise ill-treated for many years.

          Fucking hell. Getting hit on is ill treatment? I can’t ask women if they want to have coffee?

          1. omfg–if you read that article it clearly illustrates that feminism and libertarianism are wholly incompatible–with liberty to be sacrificed at every turn in favor of female collectivism.

    2. This is why my wife wouldn’t participate here. “They’re assholes, not because they’re libertarians, but because they’re assholes.”

        1. And that’s why we don’t have Chicago meetups- an asshole concentration that would be acceptable in DC or LA would not be acceptable here.

          1. wee dont have one in Denver cause too many are not Broncos fans.

            1. That gives me hope. The Broncos are the second most evil team in the NFL.

              1. You are on the list.
                FOREVER!

                1. It is a list that I’m proud to be on. EVIL.

      1. ClubMedSux said the same back in the day.

      2. “I mean one of them is named Old Man With Candy! What a sicko!”

      3. I have never actually ever met a libertarian in person to the best of my knowledge (again, to my knowledge assuredly I have met a libertarian in passing at some time, some where)

        So all of my observations are from the media and online.

        You are, it must be said, at the very least a prickly bunch.

        1. You are, it must be said, at the very least a prickly bunch.

          Fuck you.

        2. I am willing to wager you have not only met one, but have worked with several, and it is highly likely at least one person in your inner to medium circle is a staunch libertarian. MOST of use are not a vocal due to maintaining social capitol. Others, like myself, routinely tell our liberal friends they are hypocrites.

          Side Note:
          Speaking with “very liberal” friends over the weekend the case of Charlie Hebdo came up. They said they defend free speech, I asked if that means Holocaust denial, they said no. I lost brain cells.

        3. People on the Internet tend to be “prickly.”

      4. I dunno. I find some of you very charming.

      5. Well yeah, 90%+ of everyone on the internet is an asshole. Come to think of it, 90%+ of people in real life are assholes.

  5. OT in that it is only tangentially related to those 9-year-old Yazidi girls who have been gang raped until they developed vesicovaginal fistulae:

    Someone should tell Jimmy Carter that while violence in Palestine was not responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Charlie Hebdo massacre is now responsible for violence in Palestine.

    In Gaza, “Some 200 radical Islamists tried to storm the French cultural centre in Gaza City on Monday, shouting slogans threatening the lives of staff over Charlie Hebdo cartoons,” AFP reported, adding that the protesters chanted “‘Damnation upon France!’ and waved black flags adopted by jihadists.

    “Leave Gaza, you French, or we will slaughter you by cutting your throats,” the protesters chanted, according to AFP.

    And the “Mendaciousness Beyond Description Award” goes to Abu Abdallah Makdissi:

    The paper quoted one protester, Abu Abdallah Makdissi, as saying, “Today, we are telling France and world countries that while Islam orders us to respect all religions, it also orders us to punish and kill those who assault and offend Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.”

    And Islamic respect for all religions was displayed via the Taliban’s desecration of the Bamiyan Buddhas, I suppose?

    1. IBI – Islamists being Islamists. I am increasingly leaning toward a couple of other posters whose mindset is that the only way to deal with Islam is with extreme prejudice. These folks are like the proverbial Terminator – can’t be reasoned with, etc.

      1. The easiest way to deal with them is to have as little to do with them as possible, and the includes not letting them migrate to the West in mass.

        1. I couldn’t agree more. These people practice a vile ideology with religious devotion and the extremists are most definitely not just some tiny proportion of them. Immigration authorities would turn away self-identified Nazis I have no doubt, so ideological discrimination isn’t exactly unprecedented.

      2. Let’s just nuke Gaza. Wer can save the whole planet.

        1. Just take the leash off Israel and let them do it.

    2. And Islamic respect for all religions was displayed via the Taliban’s desecration of the Bamiyan Buddhas, I suppose?

      Well, that and executing apostates.

      1. Executing apostates has ridiculously high levels of support throughout almost all of the Islamic societies, with the exception of some formerly communist territories that are Muslim majority.

  6. Until libertarianism can be demonstrated in Cosmo how it some crazy how will help the ladies land a husband, there will be no increase in women libertarians.

    1. “10 wild libertarian sex moves!”

      “Best toned abs and butt with this libertarian work out!”

      “Catch his eye with this libertarian fashion!”

      1. Well, done, Swiss.

        1. frighteningly well done…anything you wan to admit Swiss?

          The Swiss are really just French lite with a little German chocolate thrown in.

          1. *sharpens pike, prepares crossbow*

  7. I always like when a woman tells me that she is a feminist to respond ,”Awesome! So you are totally pro-Second Amendment, right?”

    That question is usually met with the look of someone who has just heard a thought-provoking question they had never thought of.

    1. Can you hear the gears grinding in a vain attempt to process the question?

  8. Speakind of abortion (hey, she brought it up!)

    Of all the issues on which to stay institutionally neutral, libertarians chose *this?* For once, the patented libertarian fanaticism on behalf of principle would be called for in the case of prolife.

    And that’s the best-case scenario. Worst-case is the constant pro-choice advocacy by avowed libertarians, sorry ENB.

    1. Julie Borowski’s prolife video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNH-0HKZu_U

    2. By principle, libertarianism demands a position that is both extremist pro-choice and extremist pro-life. The issue is not the abortion itself, but when it takes place. Because the issue of when rights are conferred will differ depending upon each observer, it makes no sense to impose an arbitrary standard for when the practice should be outlawed.

      We’ve been through this a billion and one times. You think the rights are conferred at conception, which is fine for you, but you should try and convince every one else that this is the case instead of getting the King to declare it as such.

      1. Because the issue of when rights are conferred will differ depending upon each observer

        Really? I thought that natural rights came with life? If they do not, then there is no reason to confer them until someone is fully developed into an adult human being, or any other arbitrary time.

        We call them “natural” rights because they are conveyed by the Creator. They begin when life begins, or they can’t be “natural”.

        What you describe are “rights” conveyed by the populace or legislation. Nothing “natural” about either.

        1. We call them “natural” rights because they are conveyed by the Creator. They begin when life begins, or they can’t be “natural”.

          We call them natural because you have them by virtue of your humanity. But hell, just go ahead and redefine ‘natural’ like you would any other word that serves your purpose. Your fictional Jew god is not a necessary component of rational belief.

          1. According to Judeo-Christian mythology Life begins with the “Breath of Life”…sooo all Judeo-Christians should be Pro-Choice in the matter?

            1. According to Science, ALL, new, multi-cellular life begins with a single cell.

              I could give two shits about Jew-Christian mythology. I am fascinated with the abortion mythology of when “personhood” occurs, however. When the fetal tissue is slathered in personhood sauce as it passes through the birth canal? Since this mechanism has not been described scientifically, who holds “faith”?

              1. My point, calssically missed by the Marshall, is that “Christians” are claiming conception as some sort of religious justification for your “personhood sauce” when in fact their own faith CLEARLY says it is not.

                1. He missed quite a lot in this thread. It’s as if he didn’t read any post that he’s responded to.

                2. their own faith CLEARLY says it is not.

                  An expert on Christianity are you? No, as typical of many non-Christians you are misinterpreting their faith to suit your own needs. I won’t bother looking for all of the biblical recognition of life before birth but there are several. Your single verse that places life at birth ignores many others that place life before birth.

                  The Bible says a ton of shit that contradicts itself. Of course Christians pick and choose which parts to follow. Claiming that some chose the wrong parts is nonsensical if you are a not a believer.

                  1. Just because the bible contradicts itself doesn’t mean citing bible verses is verboten. Those contradictions are worth acknowledging and are entirely relevant when the topic is Judeo-Christian philosophy.

                    1. when the topic is Judeo-Christian philosophy

                      Science H Logic! The topic is natural rights. Because you can’t or won’t debate them, you keep attempting to shift the topic to something else, religion, which no one is arguing!

                      I say “Science determines that life begins at conception” and you reply “The bible is not truth”

                      Pathetic.

                    2. Science H Logic! The topic is natural rights.

                      Yes, that falls in the realm philosophy, particularly in regards to Judeo-Christian philosophy as per the conversation. Do you literally not know what philosophy is? Do you think ‘natural rights’ is a topic for biologists to expound upon?

                      I say “Science determines that life begins at conception” and you reply “The bible is not truth”

                      You said the Creator conveyed your natural rights to you. Don’t be a liar and buffoon. It’s unseemly.

          2. Your fictional Jew god…

            Classy, Free Society, classy.

            1. The truth is always classy.

          3. Your fictional Jew god is not a necessary component of rational belief.

            Bizarre. I am an atheist. My post mentioned fucking science, not the metaphysical. Since I did not create myself, I used the term “Creator”. No metaphysics implied. I simply know that I did not create myself.

            Typically, you did not address the science. So who is religious?

            1. Creator with a capital ‘C’ implies recognition of the validity of those supernatural claims. On your next post you should spell ‘him’ with a capital ‘H’ and then whine about someone taking it the wrong way.

              1. Creator with a capital ‘C’ implies recognition of the validity of those supernatural claims.

                No it does not. I specifically did not say “God”. I did not create myself. You simply projected your belief on my comment. Mostly because you can’t refute the science, I expect.

                1. So is ‘Creator’ your mom or dad’s name? Because if not, you are implying something else with very specific language that you clearly don’t understand.

                  1. So is ‘Creator’ your mom or dad’s name? Because if not, you are implying something else with very specific language that you clearly don’t understand.

                    You mean you disagree with my description so I don’t “understand” your position?

                    I really meant nothing metaphysical by Creator. Fucking remove it. Address the science. Oh, yeah, you can’t won’t.

                    1. I really meant nothing metaphysical by Creator. Fucking remove it. Address the science. Oh, yeah, you can’t won’t.

                      Again did you actually read anything you responded to? What ‘science’ am I supposed to be debating with you. You said

                      We call them “natural” rights because they are conveyed by the Creator. They begin when life begins, or they can’t be “natural”.

                      And then I said

                      We call them natural because you have them by virtue of your humanity. But hell, just go ahead and redefine ‘natural’ like you would any other word that serves your purpose. Your fictional Jew god is not a necessary component of rational belief.

                      And now you say I’m dodging some debate about science with you? Who the fuck knows what you’re talking about.

                    2. So who is Creator? Is it Him?

                    3. And now you say I’m dodging some debate about science with you?

                      No, now I say you are just being a mendacious cunt.

                      Atheists who do not believe in God often use such a word to describe Nature. If you were not being purposefully obtuse you might recognize that.

                    4. Creator is a personified term. It implies an entity that creates. Moreover you said the Creator actually conveyed something to you. No passive voice used. Nature is nature. Capitalized letters mean stuff, derpy.

          4. Your fictional Jew god

            I learned a new favorite simile yesterday: “As quiet as god during the Holocaust.”

            1. Oooooh, that is good. I like that.

              1. A ventriloquist is as silent as god during the holocaust.

          5. We call them natural because you have them by virtue of your humanity.

            This is some serious cognitive dissonance. I claim that rights come from life and you agree. You then deny the obviously living, individual human is any of these things, apparently.

            I believe that natural rights come from our humanity. You seem to be denying the obvious, initial stages of said humanity. Are human fetuses really not human? Alive?

            You need to learn to stick with the weasel words “personhood” or “being”. Human doesn’t fit in your claimed worldview.

            1. I claim that rights come from life and you agree. You then deny the obviously living, individual human is any of these things, apparently.

              I didn’t say word one about fetuses. Not sure if this is a strawman or if you are genuinely are unaware of what you wrote…

              We call them “natural” rights because they are conveyed by the Creator. They begin when life begins, or they can’t be “natural”.

              I said natural rights need not include supernatural forces to be valid.

              1. I said natural rights need not include supernatural forces to be valid.

                I agreed and you bitched about my wording. When I point out that nature starts ALL multi-celluar life with a single cell you go back to a poor choice of the use of of the word “Creator”.

                Of course, arguing with the voices in your head is much easier than with the things I actually say.

                1. I agreed and you bitched about my wording. When I point out that nature starts ALL multi-celluar life with a single cell you go back to a poor choice of the use of of the word “Creator”.

                  You didn’t agree with shit. You snorted some sand up your vagina and proceeded to toss strawmen around because someone dared to read your argument as it was actually written. It’s not my fault communication is so hard for you.

    3. Depends on what deserves human rights. If fetuses deserve human right then libertarians should be pro-life. If fetuses don’t deserve human rights then libertarians should be pro choice.

      The problem is that no one is bothering to have the real argument of what does and does not deserve human rights.

      1. yeah, like there can’t be common sense regulation of pizza crust depth.

      2. Depends on what deserves human rights. If fetuses deserve human right then libertarians should be pro-life. If fetuses don’t deserve human rights then libertarians should be pro choice.

        The problem is that no one is bothering to have the real argument of what does and does not deserve human rights.

        Before you can get to that point, you have to figure out what is and is not a fetus. Or is fetus even the term you want to use?

        In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development may be defined as beginning at the eleventh week in gestational age, which is the ninth week after fertilization. In biological terms, however, prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus. The use of the term “fetus” generally implies that a mammalian embryo has developed to the point of being recognizable as belonging to its own species, and this is usually taken to be the 9th week after fertilization. A fetus is also characterized by the presence of all the major body organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional, and may not all be situated in their final anatomical location.

      3. Well said.

  9. feminism:women::Islamism:Muslims

  10. I’ve found the women at the investors meetups/seminars I attend to be fairly libertarian. They are seeking wealth, embrace capitalism and profits, are self-reliant, and not averse to risk or responsibility. Of course there is little political discussion and when there is it focuses on the Fed, taxation, regulation, national debt, etc. No talk about abortion, sex work, equal pay, child leave, or any of that bullshit.

  11. Elizabeth,
    For the love of Rand. Stop pitching up your voice at the end of a sentence? So that everything you say sounds like a question? It’s really annoying?

    1. Does she do the vocal fry as well?

      1. No, it’s just the up to make it a question thing. And I think she might already be aware of it because she doesn’t do it all the time. But enough you can’t help but notice and want to smack her upside the head.

    2. A whole generation seems to have that annoying retarded habit. Q: “Where are you from?” Answer: “I’m from Pittsburgh?”

    3. “I mean…”

  12. “the storied lack of libertarian women”

    Compared to the prevalence of libertarian men?
    I know progs think that anyone who is against unceasing spending increases in government is a libertarian, but I thought we were more refined in our definitions than that.

  13. btw, the political marriage gap suggests a libertarian man might be able to make his woman libertarian by marrying her.

    1. I wonder if that would work for gay marriage.

      1. Worth a shot. Libertarians should start a national “marry a non-libertarian” campaign.

    2. Oddly, that seems to be working in my case without me even really trying all that hard.

      My wife’s politics have changed quite dramatically since we got married (and the rate of change was virtually nil during the significant amount of time we were living together but not married). It’s to the point where she’s sort of got the zeal of the recently-converted, such that she brings it up in situations that don’t warrant it and are somewhat cringeworthy.

      It’s weird.

    3. definitely kinda-sorta happened to my wife.

      Not that she was a raging lefty or anything before marriage. She probably already had somewhat libertarian inclinations. She was mostly a-political. Now, it’s not that we agree 100% on everything, but her and my default starting point is approximately the same.

  14. I would contend that the most compatible ideology with a libertarian political outlook would be individualism. But, while individualism and feminism have historically had many similar positions on issues, they are not necessarily compatible. Feminism is, at its core, a collectivist ideology. It is about the relative status of one collective versus another (women versus men).

  15. Ya know, this IS actually a decent line of questioning. I remember a very openly gay activist who was a staunch libertarian and he had trouble finding dates he didn’t want to strangle. I feel similar to some women I dated that were dense on liberal issues but it seems he and I are not the norm. I could never stay married to someone whose ideology was too far from mine.

    I wonder what has been Jesse’s or experience trying to find commonality in a cohort that is massively left leaning.

    1. this was in response to Tonio|1.21.15 @ 9:50AM

  16. “The Elusive Libertarian Woman”

    I saw me one once. ’05. Alaska. My snowmobile had run out of gas and I had to cross the Brooks range on foot during a blizzard. Its tracks were concealed by the storm. I almost stumbled upon it. It was larger than the pictures would have you think. Moved silently. It was feeding on the body of a Salon journalist. It looked at me once with its pitiless eyes and then silently vanished into the drifts.

  17. What the movement needs is to adopt a good argument that blows away the notion of “social justice.”

    Here it is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.