PDA

View Full Version : Libertarian Julie Borowski vs. the Leftist-Libertarian Thought Police




FrankRep
01-04-2013, 09:11 PM
The Central Committee Has Handed Down Its Denunciation (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-central-committee-has-handed-down-its-denunciation/)


Tom Woods
Jan 4, 2013


Julie Borowski: Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk


Julie Borowski, who goes by Token Libertarian Girl (http://www.youtube.com/TokenLibertarianGirl) on YouTube, makes some good videos and is a smart libertarian. The other day, though, she ran afoul of the Libertarian Thought Police, Humorless P.C. Automaton division.

Julie made a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk) exploring why the libertarian movement attracts so few women. She gave an incorrect answer, according to the Banishers. The correct answer is that libertarians are mean and say mean things, and that this general libertarian perversity keeps women away. There cannot possibly be a male-female difference of any kind that might account for the disparity. This is ruled out a priori.

Julie was thus subjected to the kind of stern ideological correction (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/01/no-girls-allowed/) one would expect from leftists who have had their p.c. pieties challenged. This is no surprise, since these folks’ criticism of other libertarians is that we don’t embrace leftism with sufficient gusto.

I won’t go through the whole dreary, predictable thing, which you can read for yourself (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/01/no-girls-allowed/).

Among other things, Julie’s critics say she “slut shames women who engage in casual sex.” (Shows how sheltered I am: evidently there are people in the world who use the phrase “slut shames.”) Doesn’t Julie know that such behavior, far from being a “cause for shame,” is just one of the “complex choices that smart, thoughtful women can and do make”?

And while of course the author of a blog post is not responsible for the comments readers leave, I found this one revealing: “Why does she rail against other women’s choices? Surely a core libertarian value is neutrality between different conceptions of the good?”

Actually, no. I replied: “The core libertarian value is nonaggression. ‘Neutrality between different conceptions of the good’ has nothing to do with libertarianism. If you were truly neutral between different conceptions of the good, you wouldn’t be arguing against Julie’s conception of the good.”

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking dominates a certain wing of the libertarian movement, which congratulates itself for its “thick” libertarianism, as opposed to the (I guess) thin kind embraced by the rest of us. Yes, yes, they concede, nonaggression is the key thing, but if you really want to promote liberty you can’t just oppose the state. You have to oppose “the patriarchy,” embrace countercultural values, etc.

Then, once libertarianism has been made to seem as freakish and anti-bourgeois as possible, these same people turn around and blame the rest of us for why the idea isn’t more popular.

Physician, heal thyself.

Incidentally, by the reasoning of Julie’s critics, one would be led to the equally patronizing conclusion that the reason there are so few female chess champions is that women can’t succeed, or won’t even try, unless everything is just so. Since male/female differences are ruled out, what other explanation is left? Not enough “role models” for women? Then how did anyone, anywhere, ever start doing anything?

GMU professor Bryan Caplan has also weighed in, suggesting that there may indeed be differences between men and women that might account for the discrepancy within libertarianism. (I can hardly wait for the shrill cries of “sexist” to overcome us all, though for various reasons I suspect Bryan will be allowed a pass.) Caplan writes (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/women_liberty_m.html):



My study of personality psychology (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/sbvsmb.pdf) makes me one of the doubters. On the popular Myers-Briggs personality test, there is a huge Thinking-Feeling gap between men and women. For men, the breakdown is roughly 60% Thinking, 40% Feeling. For women, the breakdown is roughly 30% Thinking, 70% Feeling.

This Thinking/Feeling disparity explains a lot about gender gaps in college major and occupation (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/03/what_summers_mi.html). There’s every reason to think that this disparity can help explain gender gaps in political and social views.

To make a long story short: Thinking people tend to have “hard heads” and “hard hearts,” while Feeling people have “soft heads” and “soft hearts.” Unsurprisingly, then, Feeling people tend to hold more anti-market views (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/why_are_the_agr.html). I’ve similarly found strong evidence that males “think more like economists.” (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whatmakespeoplethinklike.pdf) This gender belief gap increases with education (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/gendereconssq.doc), consistent with a simple model where male and female students gradually learn more about whatever their personalities incline them to study….

Libertarians can and should better market their ideas to women (and people, for that matter). But marketing can only do so much. Women really are more Feeling than men, and selling libertarianism to people with Feeling personalities is inherently difficult.


Julie’s critics can’t conclude their attack without unbosoming the lasting trauma of the whole episode for them: today, because of Julie’s video, they’re “a little embarrassed to admit” they’re libertarians. Poor babies. To my knowledge, they have not expressed any embarrassment when libertarians have (for example) gratuitously insulted the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways. I suppose that’s designed to bring people into the fold?

Obviously, what matters to these critics is not what will bring people to libertarianism or keep them out; if it did, the overall weirdness and reflexively anti-bourgeois posture of some of the loudest libertarians would be their first targets. What appears to matter is that on issues involving men and women (and other subjects, too, no doubt), the uttering of anything other than an exquisitely p.c. opinion is to be shunned as oh-so-embarrassing to libertarianism.

I guess we have different views of what constitutes embarrassment.

I say hooray for Julie Borowski, who through sheer hard work has made herself an increasingly accomplished and significant figure among young libertarians. Subscribe to her YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/TokenLibertarianGirl) — and, while you’re at it, mine too (http://www.youtube.com/tomwoodstv).


[B]SOURCE:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-central-committee-has-handed-down-its-denunciation/

A Son of Liberty
01-04-2013, 09:19 PM
Don't tell my wife that I'm in love with Julie Borowski, 'kay?

Origanalist
01-04-2013, 09:31 PM
Don't tell my wife that I'm in love with Julie Borowski, 'kay?

Reported.

(lol, me too)

Czolgosz
01-04-2013, 09:49 PM
Reported.

(lol, me too)


Me, three.

VoluntaryAmerican
01-04-2013, 09:50 PM
Also, small business owners and people interested in economics tend to be male.

BAllen
01-04-2013, 09:54 PM
Because women make decisions on 'feelings'. All a marxist has to do is say: "do it for the children", and it passes.

July
01-04-2013, 10:04 PM
Haha, loved this...and she is 100% right. :p

Dystopian
01-04-2013, 10:04 PM
Whats up with her tongue?


But I'm pretty sure that the reason why most females are not libertarian has absolutely nothing to do with Cosmopolitan magazine. Most males are not libertarian either, but Im not going to blame it on Sports Illustrated.

VoluntaryAmerican
01-04-2013, 10:07 PM
Because women make decisions on 'feelings'. All a marxist has to do is say: "do it for the children", and it passes.

Emotional decision making is not inherently female, men make decisions based on emotion as well.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos.

Origanalist
01-04-2013, 10:08 PM
Emotional decision making is not inherently female, men make decisions based on emotion as well.

Naw, I've never seen a pissed off guy do anything illogical.

VoluntaryAmerican
01-04-2013, 10:20 PM
Naw, I've never seen a pissed off guy do anything illogical.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYmnD3fhfk

ClydeCoulter
01-04-2013, 10:22 PM
"In general", does not mean "All", that's why there are some libertarian women and some libertarian men.
I don't know all women, so, I think I'll stop there.

Origanalist
01-04-2013, 10:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYmnD3fhfk

Stop it! You're making me cry.....

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2013, 10:50 PM
Don't tell my wife that I'm in love with Julie Borowski, 'kay?

Yes, except, not married. :D

fr33
01-04-2013, 11:49 PM
Pretty much every generalization she made about women could be made about men. The majority of men are every bit as dumb and conformist as women. She still hasn't answered the question; and no I don't have the answer either.

Occam's Banana
01-05-2013, 12:12 AM
Don't tell my wife that I'm in love with Julie Borowski, 'kay?

Julie is very nice, but I'm a one-woman type of guy - and Amanda BillyRock done stole my heart ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJjt72zRoOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EC6kKNISQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJjt72zRoOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EC6kKNISQ

Keith and stuff
01-05-2013, 12:16 AM
If you want to see her, Tom Woods and Shem, they will all be at Liberty Forum. It is only $99 for 4 days and free for those under 18. Ron Paul's Freaking Giant runs the event.

The 2013 Liberty Forum
February 21–24, 2013 in the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Nashua, NH
http://freestateproject.org/libertyforum

fr33
01-05-2013, 12:26 AM
^^According to the people in Keene, NH; she should rename here youtube account to tokenrepublicangirl. I've heard 2 shows on LRN that have criticized her for supporting Rand Paul. One guest host on FTL even suggested she supported Romney, which she didn't. Go to Keene, NH if you want to be a hipster libertarian and want to lose every time for the sake of being a rebel. Apparently Rand Paul is off-limits to the FSP. They want to stand around and shout, and never accomplish anything.

Keith and stuff
01-05-2013, 12:31 AM
^^According to the people in Keene, NH; she should rename here youtube account to tokenrepublicangirl. I've heard 2 shows on LRN that have criticized her for supporting Rand Paul. One guest host on FTL even suggested she supported Romney, which she didn't. Go to Keene, NH if you want to be a hipster libertarian and want to lose every time for the sake of being a rebel. Apparently Rand Paul is off-limits to the FSP. They want to stand around and shout, and never accomplish anything.

I know a couple FSPers who have won elections in Keene. Certainly, though, I doubt a lot of the anarchcapitalists or voluntaryists in Keene would support her. There is a lot of diversity in the liberty movement. I think some in Keene would like her to move to Keene.

July
01-05-2013, 12:38 AM
Pretty much every generalization she made about women could be made about men. The majority of men are every bit as dumb and conformist as women. She still hasn't answered the question; and no I don't have the answer either.

True, but I think she's spot on, women are more likely to care about what is fashionable, trendy, and popular with other women. Whether this is the result of some innate difference between the sexes, or the result of conditioning and years of targeted marketing, is beside the point... There are few libertarian examples in pop culture and libertarianism is the last thing that is trendy with women. Even conservatism isn't trendy. Whereas progressive causes are very popular. There are progressive celebrities in every aspect of popular culture.

Anyway I think her video is hilarious. She obviously touched a nerve with her critics.

Czolgosz
01-05-2013, 12:39 AM
I know a couple FSPers who have won elections in Keene. Certainly, though, I doubt a lot of the anarchcapitalists or voluntaryists in Keene would support her. There is a lot of diversity in the liberty movement. I think some in Keene would like her to move to Keene.


This is why the affection for labels is so retarded.

Not condemning your post, only making a general point.

I support people who want as much freedom as possible. More the better. A person need not fit my exact view to receive my support, nor must they put forth only efforts of which I approve as helpful to the cause. We're all different and bring something different to the table.

To be so picky and stuck on freedom label vs freedom label is petty, and unbecoming an individualistic mind.

Julie is a freedom lover.

PursuePeace
01-05-2013, 01:38 AM
That video was like watching some of the random thoughts that go through my mind being acted out right in front of me. Even down to that same exact magazine that I rolled my eyes at, standing in line at the grocery store a few days ago.

Brian4Liberty
01-05-2013, 02:55 AM
Uh, maybe it's too late at night, but Woods and Borowski aren't really making a lot of sense here (other than pointing out shallow popular culture). What exactly is the point? Can someone summarize?

Does Woods dispute the Myers/Briggs point, or does he agree?

XTreat
01-05-2013, 04:13 AM
Is it just me or is Tom Woods freaking funny as hell?

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-05-2013, 04:38 AM
Tom and Julie are right. Women's brains simply are wired differently, and hence, are less susceptible to the argumentation that is generally made on the behalf of libertarianism. There are a lot of emotional arguments to be made for libertarianism, but it seems those are not as...widespread. That is one thing 17th and 18th century radical liberals got correct - use EMOTION to drive home points. We all should be mad as hell that we're getting stolen from through taxation, eminent domain seizures, and seizures through police and courts. Not to mention the TSA... How the fuck! Anyways - you're probably better off using emotional arguments when you're talking to a women, and vice versa for men. Simple physiology.

rprprs
01-05-2013, 08:45 AM
Whats up with her tongue?http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm139/rprprs/bluecandy_zpsc955045b.jpg

Origanalist
01-05-2013, 08:54 AM
This is why the affection for labels is so retarded.

Not condemning your post, only making a general point.

I support people who want as much freedom as possible. More the better. A person need not fit my exact view to receive my support, nor must they put forth only efforts of which I approve as helpful to the cause. We're all different and bring something different to the table.

To be so picky and stuck on freedom label vs freedom label is petty, and unbecoming an individualistic mind.

Julie is a freedom lover.

+ rep. To argue over division lines at this point is beyond stupid. Let's at least try to get to the point where it's even relevant first. When and if government gets small, then we can argue over the fine points.

cajuncocoa
01-05-2013, 09:14 AM
OK, this is going to be the most unpopular post in this thread so get ready to flame away!

I think she's mostly correct about pop culture influence on (young) women, but I think she takes it a bit too far with her over-the-top theatrics. I've always found her videos to be somewhat annoying because of that. She could be a huge influence to the women in her peer group, but instead she's taken the approach of ridiculing them over purchasing choices. I think it's understandable that they're turned off by her snarkiness with regard to their desire to be fashionable and attractive (things that have nothing whatsoever to do with one's political views).

Yes, these are superficial concerns that young women tend to have, but that's not going to change anytime soon. And why does it have to? One can be fashion-conscious and libertarian at the same time (seems Julie herself fits that description, no?) IMO, she should use her platform to find common ground with those in her peer group rather than deriding them over petty shopping habits.

I love Tom Woods and I deeply respect his opinion, so I really wanted to see his point about this. And I DO think Tom (and Julie) have a point, and Julie is NOT WRONG....just that I think she should be taking a different approach to encourage women in her peer group to join the liberty movement. Ridiculing people for choices they make that have nothing to do with politics rarely gets that job done.

AdamT
01-05-2013, 09:19 AM
Don't tell my wife that I'm in love with Julie Borowski, 'kay?

Such a babe.

green73
01-05-2013, 09:21 AM
Julie is very nice, but I'm a one-woman type of guy - and Amanda BillyRock done stole my heart ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJjt72zRoOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EC6kKNISQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJjt72zRoOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EC6kKNISQ


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

You may be jealous to know that she emails me her latest uploads...

green73
01-05-2013, 09:24 AM
Bob Murphy weighs in (http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/01/why-arent-there-more-libertarian-girls.html)...


Oh wow, this issue is exploding. Tom Woods (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-central-committee-has-handed-down-its-denunciation/) expresses his feelings, and Bryan Caplan weighs in (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/women_liberty_m.html). In case you haven’t seen it, this is the video that annoyed Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/01/no-girls-allowed/):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nASPjBVQkQk

I am going to offer some quick thoughts. But first, a disclaimer: I am not going to keep writing “in general” or “for the most part” or “have a tendency to.” Obviously, this post will be full of sweeping generalizations. Don’t stereotype-shame me in the comments!

==> I rushed to Julie’s defense, not because I care about the particular issues over which others are arguing, but because (a) I’m her “Facebook friend” so I automatically was defensive and (b) I know what a pain it is to make videos like that. If you’ve never done it, you really have no idea. It would take me probably 6 hours to get something approximating the above. Oops, was your iPhone turned on? Well you gotta do it all over, because now there’s a buzzing in the audio. So, knowing how much effort she is putting into these things, and seeing exactly the little details and tricks she uses to build up her fan base, it is crazy when I was reading comments on FB etc. from people making completely asinine “suggestions” that would ensure no one watches her videos again.

==> Julie is cranking out videos that consistently get more than 10k views, and she talks about “the Budget Control Act of 2011″ and “Title IX.” She makes it cool to rip on Republicans for being for “small government” and yet freaking out over defense cuts. If you have never worked in a Think Tank environment, you don’t undersand how important that is. There could be a bunch of people all secretly thinking that, but if a few loudmouths set the tone about “that wuss Obama weakening our national defense!” then they’ll keep quiet. That’s why I am so happy with her video series.

==> The people saying, “I would never send that video to my non-libertarian friends!” are totally missing the point. This video is aimed at LIBERTARIANS. That’s why at the end she says her strategy is “how we win.”

==> If you say, “OK Bob, but then why the rant about the big purse? Why did she put lipstick all over her face? Why doesn’t she just read from cue cards with a stick up her butt?” I refer you again to her Views.

==> Julie is part of a broader trend that delights me. People are making it cool to talk about politics and economics. That’s why I adore Jon Stewart. If you told me in 2000 1998 that a comedian would have a very successful show, largely based on running clips of Fox News and making fun of speeches taken from the Congressional floor, I would have said you were nuts. Just like, if you had told me I’d one day be giving a talk at an event in Nashville with a bunch of musicians who hated the Fed, and where there were 23-year-olds smoking pot in their car beforehand listening to a black guy’s remix of Ron Paul speeches, I would have really thought you were nuts.

==> Right now, for whatever reason, it is cool in our culture to be a progressive. That’s why Matt Damon is being hailed for his anti-fracking movie, whereas Clint Eastwood is mocked for his views. Since libertarians (in our minds) are actually the ones who “know the street” and have the inside scoop on rich guys screwing everybody over, we should be the intellectuals to whom the cool kids turn when they want to learn how the world works. But they don’t trust us right now, because we are boring and out of touch.

==> Having said all that, I actually don’t think this issue–i.e., the need to make libertarianism cool in the popular culture–has much to do with girls not being in the movement. That I think is more explained, by the fact that girls don’t like to argue as much as guys do.

==> Lots of guys like science fiction, and some girls do too. But if I post on my Facebook status, “Who would win in a fight? The Enterprise (Galaxy Class) or a Super Star Destroyer?” it is going to be all guys, except for an occasional girl who makes fun of us for being such dorks. Notice, if I said, “Who could provide the most assistance to a space station with a flu outbreak?” no guy would care. But when I make it about a fight, now we’re interested.

==> So, right now libertarianism as a movement is like my question about the Enterprise vs. the Super Star Destroyer. “Suppose you had a fractional reserve bank versus a 100% reserve bank in a world with no government. Who wins?” Hell yeah, I’m going to make lifelong enemies debating that question. But most girls are going to think, “You guys are dorks.”

==> I think it would be interesting to study Marxism, because there are clearly sectarian squabbles there, but there are a bunch of women in it. So somebody explain that to me. I am quite sure I’m hitting something important above, but it’s not decisive since I can’t explain Marxism.

==> Last point: Say I’m right or wrong, but this is why I “make such an ass” of myself on the Internet. Sometimes I get the impression that certain critics think I got drunk and accidentally posted a video of myself in the bathroom taunting Krugman. Maybe that’s a dumb strategy, or maybe it’s brilliant, but please spare me the lecture, “Bob, don’t you realize that you don’t sound like a stuffy academic? Why would Harvard invite you to guest lecture next year with this video floating around?” Give me a break.

AdamT
01-05-2013, 09:27 AM
Is it just me or is Tom Woods freaking funny as hell?

Not just you. He could've been a comedian.

AdamT
01-05-2013, 09:28 AM
You may be jealous to know that she emails me her latest uploads...

Me too! Subscribed.

green73
01-05-2013, 09:33 AM
Me too! Subscribed.

No. She actually sends them to me. :cool:

cajuncocoa
01-05-2013, 09:40 AM
Bryan Caplan's article:

(http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/women_liberty_m.html)
Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire have restarted (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/01/no-girls-allowed/) a long-standing debate about the shortage of libertarian women. They make a very fair point: Libertarians should have been friendlier and more respectful to women - and turn over a new leaf forthwith. As I've argued before (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/07/the_case_for_li.html), this is good general advice: Libertarians should be friendlier and more respectful, period. To quote Mark Twain, "It will gratify some people, and astonish the rest."

Still, while I share Steve and Sarah's recommendations, I'm afraid they're conflating two issues: marketing and social science.

The marketing issue: How can libertarians better sell their ideas to women?

The social science issue: Why is there a shortage of libertarian women?

It's possible that the marketing issue is the answer to the social science issue. Maybe bad marketing fully explains the libertarian gender gap. But then again, maybe not. A person could embrace the perfectly sensible view that libertarians should improve their marketing, yet still doubt that the best marketing in the world would close the gap.

My study of personality psychology (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/sbvsmb.pdf) makes me one of the doubters. On the popular Myers-Briggs personality test, there is a huge Thinking-Feeling gap between men and women. For men, the breakdown is roughly 60% Thinking, 40% Feeling. For women, the breakdown is roughly 30% Thinking, 70% Feeling.

This Thinking/Feeling disparity explains a lot about gender gaps in college major and occupation (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/03/what_summers_mi.html). There's every reason to think that this disparity can help explain gender gaps in political and social views.

To make a long story short: Thinking people tend to have "hard heads" and "hard hearts," while Feeling people have "soft heads" and "soft hearts." Unsurprisingly, then, Feeling people tend to hold more anti-market views (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/why_are_the_agr.html). I've similarly found strong evidence that males "think more like economists (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whatmakespeoplethinklike.pdf)." This gender belief gapincreases with education (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/gendereconssq.doc), consistent with a simple model where male and female students gradually learn more about whatever their personalities incline them to study.

The whole premise "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/)," of course, is that we shouldunbundle the hardness of our heads and the hardness of our hearts. Logically speaking, we can combine hard heads and soft hearts. Empirically, though, this combination is rare. And that's why Bleeding Heart Libertarians have their work cut out for them. If you're trying to sell libertarianism to Feeling people, "hard head, soft heart" ideas are more persuasive than "hard head, hard heart" ideas. But the libertarian remains at an inherent disadvantage against intellectual rivals pedaling "soft head, soft heart" ideas.

Marketing matters. Libertarians can and should better market their ideas to women (and people, for that matter). But marketing can only do so much. Women really are more Feeling than men, and selling libertarianism to people with Feeling personalities is inherently difficult.

Please don't be angry at me, I am only a messenger.I think he gets it right....and without the snark.

Rothbardian Girl
01-05-2013, 09:55 AM
I see a lot of name-callling going on in this article. I think Tom has to be careful of accusing the other side of being "Banishers". I have honestly always found a lot of "banishment" behavior emanating from the rightist libertarian wing. If a libertarian doesn't extol the virtues of capitalism, does think that women do encounter difficulties in mainstream society and expected familial roles based on sex, or -gasp- even dares to disagree with Ron Paul, I think he or she tends to be shouted down amongst anarcho-capitalist or minarchist circles.

The main critique that feminist libertarians have is that right-libertarians tend to ignore specific difficulties that women face just for the sake of proclaiming that everyone's rights are being infringed upon. While it is true that both men and women are being deprived of liberty, I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the magnitude of this deprivation has been the same. Many women who are not libertarians indeed feel differently from what someone like Julie or Tom would argue.

I don't see how Julie expects to be successful converting women when she makes the same arguments that conservatives do in order to shut out women from a message of more liberty for all. I think her video amounts to patting male and rightist libertarians on the back, chalking women's lack of response up to physiological differences between the two sexes, when it is in fact true that many women in this movement are treated in a sub-par manner. I think every female libertarian can tell a "creepertarian" story... in fact, there are plenty of anecdotes to be had from this topic! The height of irony.

For example, the view that "Women buy the propaganda that the state is their daddy and that it will keep them safe. The state uses their biology against them" (an actual quote from someone on Facebook responding to the same article Tom is responding to) is patently insulting and does more to drive off women from this movement than "biological differences" ever could. It smacks of oversimplification, which is what a lot of libertarians do when forced to answer the tough questions about capitalism, race/gender relations, and even the nature of authority itself in a few cases.

I also find it mildly amusing how Caplan is using the Meyers-Briggs Test to confirm his views. That test is nothing more than pop psychology, and it is notoriously shoddy in methodology and a whole bunch of other things. It really should not be used for any serious psychological analysis. Some sources even fully categorize it as pseudoscience.

BAllen
01-05-2013, 10:15 AM
True, but I think she's spot on, women are more likely to care about what is fashionable, trendy, and popular with other women. Whether this is the result of some innate difference between the sexes, or the result of conditioning and years of targeted marketing, is beside the point... There are few libertarian examples in pop culture and libertarianism is the last thing that is trendy with women. Even conservatism isn't trendy. Whereas progressive causes are very popular. There are progressive celebrities in every aspect of popular culture.

Anyway I think her video is hilarious. She obviously touched a nerve with her critics.

Right! That's why the Marxists targeted women for their support base: CULTURAL MARXISM.

July
01-05-2013, 11:02 AM
Right! That's why the Marxists targeted women for their support base: CULTURAL MARXISM.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not necessarily because women are more emotional decision makers (men clearly behave this way also, although maybe about very different things), or that we don't like to debate/argue as much as men (I think we definitely do, but about very different stuff perhaps....about scifi series generally no, about the latest Taylor Swift video, Twilight movie, or latest diet craze or child care trend, yep). What I think Julie is getting at is that progressive causes are popular and women like fitting in with their (female) friends, etc. Progressive celebrities and causes are associated with all sorts of things women like....progressive celebrities sell us fashion, makeup, handbags, music, tv dramas, movies, magazines, shoes, etc... Stuff women like. I see it everywhere. So these issues become socially acceptable for women, the cause goes on their radar, and they start chatting with friends about it. Why do think there was such a nasty twitter backlash at Kelly Clarkson just for expressing mild admiration for Ron Paul?

Maybe the problem is that there are too many male libertarians trying to make it popular through stuff men like, scifi novels, etc...and the female libertarians we do have aren't helping much, because we are attracted to the same interests already. Write a novel like Twilight that would be popular with women, and maybe we'd be getting somewhere... Lol.

cajuncocoa
01-05-2013, 11:07 AM
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:

belian78
01-05-2013, 11:34 AM
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:
Tell me about it, I work for a cellular provider in my area, and I have to deal with upset males who purchased phones/plans from a pair of breasts and a flirtatious attitude everyday. (Please ladies of RPF, don't chew my head off, the girls I work with are very open about how they go about their sales practices, I'm not dramatizing.) I'm not saying every female that works for my company is like that, but most of them are, because it works unfortunately. It drives me up a wall because it may mean numbers now, but it causes so many headaches in the end. But, as the saying goes 'sex sells'.

specsaregood
01-05-2013, 12:03 PM
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:

Dunno if I'd drool over her; but I will say this, Julie seems to be a wonderful young lady.

acptulsa
01-05-2013, 12:04 PM
Tom and Julie are right. Women's brains simply are wired differently...

Who cares?

Who cares, who cares, who cares?

We already know how to win over those of either sex who have a liberal bent. We know this. You tell them that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee that corporations that want to run the country need to buy fifty state legislatures, while centralized federal power means corporations that want to run the country can save time and money by going to Washington for one stop shopping. Therefore, we should minimize Washington and leave regulation and such up to the states whenever and wherever humanly possible. Why make it easy for the corporatists?

It works. Time and time again. In fact, you can tell a liberal troll from a liberal with an open mind by telling them this, and seeing if they agree or if they try to play it down any way they can. It works.

We don't have enough scientific knowledge to explain why and we're fools to attempt it anyway. We have an argument both logical and emotional that works on everyone who isn't trying to defend a dogma just to defend it. Instead of playing with these amusing age old, unanswerable questions and beating ourselves off, we should be busy spreading the argument proven to work. Don't make it easy for the corporatists. Insist Washington be minimized so they can't do one-stop shopping. Done.

Anything else is just attention whoring.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 12:05 PM
Tell me about it, I work for a cellular provider in my area, and I have to deal with upset males who purchased phones/plans from a pair of breasts and a flirtatious attitude everyday. (Please ladies of RPF, don't chew my head off, the girls I work with are very open about how they go about their sales practices, I'm not dramatizing.) I'm not saying every female that works for my company is like that, but most of them are, because it works unfortunately. It drives me up a wall because it may mean numbers now, but it causes so many headaches in the end. But, as the saying goes 'sex sells'.

Guys are hypnotized by flirtatious attractive females to do stupid things? Isnt this story as old as time?

belian78
01-05-2013, 12:10 PM
Guys are hypnotized by flirtatious attractive females to do stupid things? Isnt this story as old as time?
Which is the counter point that was being made earlier, I was just adding my personal experience with the phenomena. LOL

torchbearer
01-05-2013, 12:10 PM
Guys are hypnotized by flirtatious attractive females to do stupid things? Isnt this story as old as time? goes back to the first pages, i think.

Antischism
01-05-2013, 12:11 PM
Wow, she's incredibly annoying.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 12:17 PM
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:

You mean WILL be bamboozled? I bet her inbox is maxed out on a daily basis with messages from lonely pathetic guys trying to swoon her. She probably gets 20+ times more messages in one day than Ron Paul and Tom Woods combined.

BAllen
01-05-2013, 12:17 PM
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:

That's true, as well.

BAllen
01-05-2013, 12:20 PM
That's why this is a good site. We can speak the truth on stereotypes, and not be banned as 'haters' for it.

cajuncocoa
01-05-2013, 12:28 PM
You mean WILL be bamboozled? I bet her inbox is maxed out on a daily basis with messages from lonely pathetic guys trying to swoon her. She probably gets 20+ times more messages in one day than Ron Paul and Tom Woods combined.I'll bet you're right. And if the general population of men (as opposed to right-leaning libertarian guys who already agree with her) watched this video, 80% of them will drool in spite of not being able to answer questions about what she said.

And now you know why women want the expensive makeup and fashions. Many of us think that marketing can help us compete with the Julie's of the world.

Brian4Liberty
01-05-2013, 12:31 PM
For example, the view that "Women buy the propaganda that the state is their daddy and that it will keep them safe. The state uses their biology against them" (an actual quote from someone on Facebook responding to the same article Tom is responding to) is patently insulting and does more to drive off women from this movement than "biological differences" ever could. It smacks of oversimplification, which is what a lot of libertarians do when forced to answer the tough questions about capitalism, race/gender relations, and even the nature of authority itself in a few cases.

I also find it mildly amusing how Caplan is using the Meyers-Briggs Test to confirm his views. That test is nothing more than pop psychology, and it is notoriously shoddy in methodology and a whole bunch of other things. It really should not be used for any serious psychological analysis. Some sources even fully categorize it as pseudoscience.

It is certainly true that libertarians tend to be "scientific" and over-analytical, and often ignore how someone will personally take another person analyzing them or making generalizations.

For example, people taking offense at the suggestion that woman may tend to look to the state to take care of them does not come to mind when making the observation. Lack of awareness of how others may take something is especially stereotypical of Myers-Briggs NT types. ;)

Back to the "analysis" again, if we look at the healthcare debate, I will go out on limb and say that it is an issue that is more important to woman. Ensuring that everyone has access to healthcare is going to resonate more with women than men. The party that promises to provide it to everyone is going to attract voters based on that. Obviously, government playing Santa Claus to constituents is usually a winning strategy for statists. It boils down to who gets the presents that they want. Welfare is another handout that generally targets woman, so much so that it's pretty much standard procedure in the "industry" to insist that men (husbands, fathers) not be part of the picture in order to receive benefits.

What do men like? They like to play soldier. They like to play cops and robbers. Even if they don't directly get jobs from the government in those areas, they will tend to support parties that cater to them with rhetoric and spending.

The idea that government shouldn't be doing any of these things probably doesn't have a male/female bias. It's the sales pitches (propaganda) for big government that cater to certain demographics.

Myers-Briggs is brought up with regard to these issues as it is basically a poll of certain preferences, and as with any poll, it can be broken down by demographics. It is nothing more than a categorization. Now the "indicator" tests are terribly flawed, and often give erroneous results. But those who study Myers-Briggs look at large sample sizes, where trends can be determined more accurately. Myers-Briggs as a categorization is no more or less scientific than "animal-vegetable-mineral".

And the MB statistics on men and women in no way state that all men or all women are one way or another. Everyone is an individual, and can be any type. There is a slight gender bias in the T/F component, but that is a generalization, and does not apply to any given individual.

Hopefully this isn't all "patently insulting". I wouldn't know for sure. That's a blind spot in my Myers-Briggs type. ;)

VoluntaryAmerican
01-05-2013, 12:32 PM
I don't see how Julie expects to be successful converting women when she makes the same arguments that conservatives do in order to shut out women from a message of more liberty for all. I think her video amounts to patting male and rightist libertarians on the back, chalking women's lack of response up to physiological differences between the two sexes, when it is in fact true that many women in this movement are treated in a sub-par manner. I think every female libertarian can tell a "creepertarian" story... in fact, there are plenty of anecdotes to be had from this topic! The height of irony.

For example, the view that "Women buy the propaganda that the state is their daddy and that it will keep them safe. The state uses their biology against them" (an actual quote from someone on Facebook responding to the same article Tom is responding to) is patently insulting and does more to drive off women from this movement than "biological differences" ever could. It smacks of oversimplification, which is what a lot of libertarians do when forced to answer the tough questions about capitalism, race/gender relations, and even the nature of authority itself in a few cases.


I don't think Julie's sole purpose in the video was to convert women, it was just her view of the 'truth' why there aren't as many Libertarian women, she was sharing that with her audience which is obviously more male. I don't see harm in that.

I agree with the "creeptarian" comment, it's something male Libertarians should be more mindful of.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 12:41 PM
I'll bet you're right. And if the general population of men (as opposed to right-leaning libertarian guys who already agree with her) watched this video, 80% of them will drool in spite of not being able to answer questions about what she said.

And now you know why women want the expensive makeup and fashions. Many of us think that marketing can help us compete with the Julie's of the world.


I bet Im right. I dont think a random youtube male with less than average talent and a speech impediment (not to demean her) could be as popular let alone get Tom Woods to publish a glowing review.

cajuncocoa
01-05-2013, 12:45 PM
I bet Im right. I dont think a random youtube male with less than average talent and a speech impediment (not to demean her) could be as popular let alone get Tom Woods to publish a glowing review.I'll bet you're right on that as well. +rep

Tod
01-05-2013, 12:57 PM
My favorite liberty gal is Katherine Memole, who used to host a show on Ron Paul Radio. Don't think I've ever seen a video featuring her though, just stills.

Julie is nice enough, but her earlier videos weren't so highly edited/animated. The newer ones can be a little annoyingly overdone as a lot of modern editing seems to be.

Brian4Liberty
01-05-2013, 01:00 PM
There are a lot of emotional arguments to be made for libertarianism, but it seems those are not as...widespread. That is one thing 17th and 18th century radical liberals got correct - use EMOTION to drive home points.

Agree. We are losing the PR/marketing/propaganda war.

For an ironic travesty of how the left statists have brainwashed the masses, one need look no farther than the issue of slavery. No other political philosophy is more opposed to slavery than libertarianism. Yet, through deceitful propaganda, the left statists have convinced many people that libertarians are racists and support slavery.

Now that's a successful propaganda campaign, when they can convince people that up is down, and down is up, fire is cold, and ice is hot.

PursuePeace
01-05-2013, 01:06 PM
I know the video is entitled "Why aren't there more FEMALE liberterians" but honestly, I was viewing the video more as "Why aren't there more libertarians in general." That's what I got out of it. Why aren't there more liberterians, period? We need to crowd out all of this other JUNK and push it into view. Freedom is popular.

Danan
01-05-2013, 02:13 PM
If a libertarian doesn't extol the virtues of capitalism...
How's that even libertarian then?


While it is true that both men and women are being deprived of liberty, I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the magnitude of this deprivation has been the same.
Yeah? If anything men are deprived of liberty more than women, thanks to certain quotas, affirmative action type laws, discrimination in child custody cases, etc...

Libertarianism doesn't deal with social norms, as long as they are not enforced by the state. Your feminist worldview has nothing to do with libertarianism, as long as you don't want the state to intervene, at which point it goes against libertarian ideals.

If controlled for all variables unmarried men and unmarried women earn just as much for the same job. Actually even slightly less. Again discrimination against men? Married men tend to earn more than unmarried men, while for women the opposite is true. So the whole "discrimination" argument falls apart. It's the result of different choices men and women tend to make in their lifes. I have no desire to change other people's goals in life, as long as any individual woman who wants to focus on her career instead of family is able to do so (as is the case). That gap between married men and women is closing too, btw. Also, anyone who understands free market economics knows before he even sees empirical studies that discrimination based on gender is not a suitable long term business model.

Yeah there are problems that affect women more than men. And vice versa. The truth is, non of them are really important or significant. That whole issue is way overblown.

Also I don't see why this position would count as "right-wing". What's right about that? Being mindlessly pro-women on every issue = left, stating facts = right? What's the difference between right and left libertarianism? There's no such thing, imho.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 02:35 PM
Which is the counter point that was being made earlier, I was just adding my personal experience with the phenomena. LOL

Yes. It is quite a pathetic sight to stomach. Her success wouldnt be possible without the countless virgins and lonely men on the internet. Im not impressed with her at all compared to the unsung, much brighter, talented, and deserving of more attention males ive seen, but she helps spread liberty. Goes to show how easy it is to fill empty voids where theres a lot of males who need to be serviced by scantly clad flirtatious girls who share their views. Shes like the one girl who shows up at a star trek convention. Cant blame her though. I would help serve that market if i was a female. I wonder if shell ever do a striptease video...for liberty of course.

specsaregood
01-05-2013, 02:40 PM
Yes. It is quite a pathetic sight to stomach. Her success wouldnt be possible without the countless virgins and lonely men on the internet.

There appears to be just as many unambitious haters on the internet who offer nothing but the desire to tear others down.

jj-
01-05-2013, 02:48 PM
There appears to be just as many unambitious haters on the internet who offer nothing but the desire to tear others down.

Just the internet? Have you been to life on earth?

AGRP
01-05-2013, 02:52 PM
There appears to be just as many unambitious haters on the internet who offer nothing but the desire to tear others down.

I guess telling the truth in an empire of lies is treason. The truth is that there needs to be more women to make videos about liberty because Ive never been impressed with her intellect. As for her video, the reason why liberty is not more popular is because fed and corporate money has a strangle hold on the dinosaur mass media to serve their interests. Its not because libertarians are not strumming a guitar and making music.

PursuePeace
01-05-2013, 03:01 PM
Yes. It is quite a pathetic sight to stomach. Her success wouldnt be possible without the countless virgins and lonely men on the internet. Im not impressed with her at all compared to the unsung, much brighter, talented, and deserving of more attention males ive seen, but she helps spread liberty. Goes to show how easy it is to fill empty voids where theres a lot of males who need to be serviced by scantly clad flirtatious girls who share their views. Shes like the one girl who shows up at a star trek convention. Cant blame her though. I would help serve that market if i was a female. I wonder if shell ever do a striptease video...for liberty of course.

She seems like a very intelligent, lovely person to me. She has a sense of humor that perhaps you are just not getting/don't care for. Nothing wrong with that at all. But there's no need to mischaracterize her in such an ugly way.

acptulsa
01-05-2013, 03:06 PM
...Ive never been impressed with her intellect.

Do you really think that prevents her from being a good salesperson for the movement? Honestly?


But believe me later on you will find
As you impress her with your mind
That you will just be left behind
For a wiser fool.

VoluntaryAmerican
01-05-2013, 03:09 PM
Yes. It is quite a pathetic sight to stomach. Her success wouldnt be possible without the countless virgins and lonely men on the internet. Im not impressed with her at all compared to the unsung, much brighter, talented, and deserving of more attention males ive seen, but she helps spread liberty. Goes to show how easy it is to fill empty voids where theres a lot of males who need to be serviced by scantly clad flirtatious girls who share their views. Shes like the one girl who shows up at a star trek convention. Cant blame her though. I would help serve that market if i was a female. I wonder if shell ever do a striptease video...for liberty of course.

Seriously...?

AGRP
01-05-2013, 03:13 PM
She seems like a very intelligent, lovely person to me. She has a sense of humor that perhaps you are just not getting/don't care for. Nothing wrong with that at all. But there's no need to mischaracterize her in such an ugly way.

Did i state she was an unintelligent and unlovely person? Please dont mistake constructive criticism for ugliness.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 03:21 PM
Seriously...?

Virgins part: 100% serious. You must not get out much?

Impressed part: Why did you exclude the rest of the sentence?

Striptease: It was in good humor, but yes. If i was a woman I would make a funny striptease video for liberty.

VoluntaryAmerican
01-05-2013, 03:29 PM
Virgins part: 100% serious. You must not get out much?

Impressed part: Why did you exclude the rest of the sentence?

Striptease: It was in good humor, but yes. If i was a woman I would make a funny striptease video for liberty.

Virgin part: You're giving her very little credit for her success. I think your wrong.

Impressed part: Name some?

Striptease: Bad taste in my opinion.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 03:56 PM
Virgin part: You're giving her very little credit for her success. I think your wrong.

Impressed part: Name some?

Striptease: Bad taste in my opinion.

What I stated is the honest and full truth for those who seek it. Its for those who dont maliciously exclude words, misinterpret, put words in my mouth, and read what they want so they can attack me rather than coming to terms with the truth and *gasp* publicly agreeing with it. Its undebatable unless you deny that men are driven by an endless desire for love and more importantly a need for sexual gratification. Humor in bad taste? Sure. Lets all continue laughing and agreeing with libertarian comedians such as doug stanhope for doing the same thing.

The only reason why I decided to finally speak the truth is because of her utterly ridiculous claim that the reason why libertarian ideas arent more mainstream is because we arent making enough music or have artistic talents. I would be laughed out of the building and never to be taken seriously again if i stated that. We need more libertarian women who can make videos.

VoluntaryAmerican
01-05-2013, 05:01 PM
What I stated is the honest and full truth for those who seek it. Its for those who dont maliciously exclude words, misinterpret, put words in my mouth, and read what they want so they can attack me rather than coming to terms with the truth and *gasp* publicly agreeing with it. Its undebatable unless you deny that men are driven by an endless desire for love and more importantly a need for sexual gratification. Humor in bad taste? Sure. Lets all continue laughing and agreeing with libertarian comedians such as doug stanhope for doing the same thing.

The only reason why I decided to finally speak the truth is because of her utterly ridiculous claim that the reason why libertarian ideas arent more mainstream is because we arent making enough music or have artistic talents. I would be laughed out of the building and never to be taken seriously again if i stated that. We need more libertarian women who can make videos.

I'm not attacking you. Just challenging your opinion.

I will even agree with you that some of her success is from her good looks, but to attribute most of her success to this one quality is an over-exaggeration. It's apparent to me she has charisma and determination and some business savvy of her own.

Most of the young women I know (including my girlfriend) who are Libertarians were first introduced to the idea through Ayn Rand or from a boyfriend. And as Julie said, there is clearly a lack of Libertarian pop culture directed to women. It's not some crazy concept that the media we read reinforces our beliefs, the large majority reinforces the liberal agenda for women.

Also, as I previously said more men are inherently interested in small business and economics; so they are more inclined to understand markets and how they function and come to our conclusion through this angle.

But at the end of the day... most of the blame should go to the government itself. It has helped destroy the family and it constantly pits us against each other in this fashion.

Occam's Banana
01-05-2013, 05:28 PM
You may be jealous to know that she emails me her latest uploads...

I am indeed! :D <-- me, green with envy


Bob Murphy weighs in (http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/01/why-arent-there-more-libertarian-girls.html)...

That was great. +rep. Pass it on to Bob.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 06:19 PM
I'm not attacking you. Just challenging your opinion.

I will even agree with you that some of her success is from her good looks, but to attribute most of her success to this one quality is an over-exaggeration. It's apparent to me she has charisma and determination and some business savvy of her own.

Most of the young women I know (including my girlfriend) who are Libertarians were first introduced to the idea through Ayn Rand or from a boyfriend. And as Julie said, there is clearly a lack of Libertarian pop culture directed to women. It's not some crazy concept that the media we read reinforces our beliefs, the large majority reinforces the liberal agenda for women.

Also, as I previously said more men are inherently interested in small business and economics; so they are more inclined to understand markets and how they function and come to our conclusion through this angle.

But at the end of the day... most of the blame should go to the government itself. It has helped destroy the family and it constantly pits us against each other in this fashion.

You, among others, were (and still are) attacking me by literally excluding parts (and full) of sentences in my posts. You are using your carefully crafted omissions as a lever to debate things I never stated. That is an attack.

Brett85
01-05-2013, 06:28 PM
I'm trying to work up the courage to ask Julie to marry me. :)

FrankRep
01-05-2013, 06:31 PM
I'm trying to work up the courage to ask Julie to marry me. :)
I'm sure that line is pretty long. heh.

AGRP
01-05-2013, 06:39 PM
I'm trying to work up the courage to ask Julie to marry me. :)

You and at least 2 other guys in this thread :)

Rothbardian Girl
01-05-2013, 09:33 PM
How's that even libertarian then?


Yeah? If anything men are deprived of liberty more than women, thanks to certain quotas, affirmative action type laws, discrimination in child custody cases, etc...

Libertarianism doesn't deal with social norms, as long as they are not enforced by the state. Your feminist worldview has nothing to do with libertarianism, as long as you don't want the state to intervene, at which point it goes against libertarian ideals.

If controlled for all variables unmarried men and unmarried women earn just as much for the same job. Actually even slightly less. Again discrimination against men? Married men tend to earn more than unmarried men, while for women the opposite is true. So the whole "discrimination" argument falls apart. It's the result of different choices men and women tend to make in their lifes. I have no desire to change other people's goals in life, as long as any individual woman who wants to focus on her career instead of family is able to do so (as is the case). That gap between married men and women is closing too, btw. Also, anyone who understands free market economics knows before he even sees empirical studies that discrimination based on gender is not a suitable long term business model.

Yeah there are problems that affect women more than men. And vice versa. The truth is, non of them are really important or significant. That whole issue is way overblown.

Also I don't see why this position would count as "right-wing". What's right about that? Being mindlessly pro-women on every issue = left, stating facts = right? What's the difference between right and left libertarianism? There's no such thing, imho.

A few things here:

1. A lot of left-libertarians - at least the particular wing that I subscribe to - contend that capitalism and free markets are not compatible - basically, that actually-existing capitalism could not in fact exist without the state. That is what I was driving at with that somewhat 'anti-capitalist' remark. I think that's a whole 'nother issue separate from the issue being discussed at present in this thread, so I'm not going to get too much into it here.

2.
It's the result of different choices men and women tend to make in their lifes. I have no desire to change other people's goals in life, as long as any individual woman who wants to focus on her career instead of family is able to do so (as is the case).
But why do men and women make "different choices"? Are women inherently less capable of the critical/reasoned thinking that is required for professions that typically have fewer women in them (economists, scientists of all kinds, etc.), or are there other factors at work? Women are generally expected to be less "out there" with their powers of reason. I can't tell you the amount of times I have gotten dirty looks from people who were not accustomed to someone of my gender having the traits that I have (I'm pretty much a highly logical person, to put it succinctly). I've been called "intimidating" by more than a few people, while a male with basically my same body of knowledge was not referred to in such terms. I don't have a desire to force anything down people's throats either, but I think gender roles are a whole lot more interesting and complicated than simply saying "people should be free to do whatever they want and let's leave it at that".

And, feminism has plenty to do with libertarianism. Some of the most important libertarians were feminists - Voltairine de Cleyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre), Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman), Sharon Presley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Presley) if your taste is more contemporary, Charles W. Johnson (http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/), etc. etc.

As for your implication that I care about pay differentials - I don't blame the market system for that sort of thing. I think the free(d) market has the potential to bring about more equitable arrangements, or at least ones that aren't marred by the persistent and destructive interference of the state.

By the way, Julie's response to the criticism leveled at her video is more compelling, because she also makes the point that libertarians are already marginalized in the political sphere - called juvenile, idiotic, etc. It is more likely that an already-marginalized societal group will be reluctant to take on yet another characteristic that identifies them as being different. The full link to her response is here, and I believe she does a better job explaining herself there than on the video: http://julieborowski.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/response-to-addressing-the-lack-of-female-libertarians-critcism/

Danan
01-05-2013, 09:58 PM
The stuff about wages was just to counter the usual "discrimination in the workplace" argument. I mean, sure here and there discrimination will take place. Against women and men. Positive and negative discrimination. I don't see that one outweighs the other significantly. Most people simply don't care at all about their employee's gender (well maybe the fact that women to tend to have more interuptions in their careers is a consideration for some employers, but that's neither hateful nor totally unreasonable from an economic point of view, but rather based on facts).


But why do men and women make "different choices"? Plenty of reasons. Probably genetical, cultural, etc. But what if we find that out? The question is should we change that? Why is that any of our business? As long as nobody gets coerced, I don't care what choices other people make in their lifes. I mean it may be interesting to know, from a scientific point of view, but what if we find out?

Should we actively try to change people's desires? I mean why should I make women who wants to stay at home and raise children change their minds? Or men who want to focus on their career?

Personally I guess I'm really "liberal" on that issue. If I find a women I truly love I believe I would have no problem to stay at home and raise kids myself, if she has better job opportunities and wants to stay working. But why would I want to change how other people choose to live their lifes? That doesn't affect me at all.

Also, I don't know if women in general tend to be less or more logical and if that has anything to do with what jobs either group tends to work in. Again a totally scientific question (though a very interesting one), without any important consequences for the real world. Even if it turned out to be the case that men on average are more "logical thinking", that still doesn't tell you anything about an individual man. Just that the likelyhood of a randomly picked man to be logical thinking would be higher than of a randomly picked woman. But in all important instances (like job interviews) you don't pick people randomly.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2013, 10:03 PM
Virgins part: 100% serious. You must not get out much?

Impressed part: Why did you exclude the rest of the sentence?

Striptease: It was in good humor, but yes. If i was a woman I would make a funny striptease video for liberty.
And here I thought the internets were full of sluts (male and female). And dannno wannabes. (no, I don't get out much. /shrugs)

Rothbardian Girl
01-05-2013, 10:15 PM
The stuff about wages was just to counter the usual "discrimination in the workplace" argument. I mean, sure here and there discrimination will take place. Against women and men. Positive and negative discrimination. I don't see that one outweighs the other significantly. Most people simply don't care at all about their employee's gender (well maybe the fact that women to tend to have more interuptions in their careers is a consideration for some employers, but that's neither hateful nor totally unreasonable from an economic point of view, but rather based on facts).

Plenty of reasons. Probably genetical, cultural, etc. But what if we find that out? The question is should we change that? Why is that any of our business? As long as nobody gets coerced, I don't care what choices other people make in their lifes. I mean it may be interesting to know, from a scientific point of view, but what if we find out?

Should we actively try to change people's desires? I mean why should I make women who wants to stay at home and raise children change their minds? Or men who want to focus on their career?

Personally I guess I'm really "liberal" on that issue. If I find a women I truly love I believe I would have no problem to stay at home and raise kids myself, if she has better job opportunities and wants to stay working. But why would I want to change how other people choose to live their lifes? That doesn't affect me at all.

I don't think action on anyone's ELSE'S part is necessarily required to "change people's desires". I think women who aren't necessarily already libertarian understand from the start that they face issues that are by nature quite different than the issues men face. As a libertarian, I think the fastest way to getting them to see my view (that state intervention is actually more harmful to women) is to acknowledge that these issues exist, and then explain in some way how the state reinforces patterns of oppression against women. My ultimate point is this: people can ultimately act more effectively to free themselves once they understand the nature of their own oppression. It does no good to flat-out deny that it exists. You'll have to note here that I don't think much of the problem, if any of it, is "genetic" or "biological" in nature -- I think it's the way some women are raised, both in the home and in the failing educational system. I also believe male libertarians don't do much to advance the cause, either - I tried to hint at that in my very first post on this topic.

You and I have different priorities. That is really what it comes down to.

Brett85
01-05-2013, 10:23 PM
Has anyone heard of a conservative woman commentator on Facebook named Paula Priesse? If not, you should definitely look her up. :)

AGRP
01-05-2013, 11:04 PM
And here I thought the internets were full of sluts (male and female). And dannno wannabes. (no, I don't get out much. /shrugs)

Supply and demand. I wouldnt want to be the only girl showing up at a star trek convention unless i wanted the attention and money.

Brett85
01-06-2013, 04:54 PM
Bump.

DamianTV
01-06-2013, 06:19 PM
I love the Blue Tongue in the first post!

loveshiscountry
01-06-2013, 06:48 PM
Supply and demand. I wouldnt want to be the only girl showing up at a star trek convention unless i wanted the attention and money.okay I'll bite. Why would ANY girl want to be at a star trek convention if she was looking for a man?

idiom
01-06-2013, 06:56 PM
Me, three.

On a topic of why there are so few female libertarians the first *three* comments are...

iGGz
01-07-2013, 01:13 PM
Well, well, well...

Sola_Fide
02-01-2013, 04:29 AM
Great video.