House of Eratosthenes

Tim Cavanaugh interviews Allison Gibbs, chief muckety-muck of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance. Among the issues discussed is the bizarre nineteen-to-one (!) ratio of men to women in libertarian ranks.

Some of that gets into the gender disparity between attraction to opportunity & attraction to security, which comes perilously close to the Three Things Morgan Hasn’t Got the Balls to Blog.

I do think, though, that if you changed the subject from libertarianism…to something more like…I recognize liberal democrat policies are bullshit. You wouldn’t be looking at a nineteen-to-one ratio anymore. I’m gonna peg that one at two-and-a-half to one or thereabouts. Just spitballing here.

But the libertarian 19:1 thing is interesting nevertheless. Wonder what’s up with that?

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Speaking as a small-l libertarian, I suspect the Libertarian sausage-fest derives from the same issue as the Y-chromosome superabundance in SF/fantasy fandom: Most of the Libertarian Party types (as in, actually going to meetings/signing petitions/running for office) are bright, but lacking in social skills. That is, they’re dorks. These are the kind of people who accompany themselves on banjo (which they strum like it’s a Shakey’s pizzeria) as they sing their compositions about the death of Jeffersonian Democracy — yes, I saw this. And for the sake of completeness, the other LP types I’ve known tend to be single-issue folks, and the issue is “hemp.” (Note: “WEEEEEEED!” is not a platform.)

Not exactly a group with a lot of distaff appeal. On the upside (at least for people like me in my single days), this means that if you have even a minimal social skill set, you can be Ronald Freakin’ Coleman. I mean, I’m a medievalist, for God’s sake, and I came across as Mr. Suave.

I agree with you, Morgan — repackaging may be in order.
- Profmondo | 12/14/2010 @ 13:25
That’s been my experience with libertarians too — potheads, stuttering unbathed Randroids, or both. Usually both. And I say this as a fellow with marked libertarian sympathies… Repackaging is definitely in order. If our modern-day Leninists can proclaim themselves “progressives” and have it stick, can’t libertarians do some similar rebranding?

[Which brings up a tangential question: is there such a thing as a female stoner? I’ve known women who like the doobage, but every honest-to-god stoner I’ve ever met has been male. Any thoughts on this?]
- Severian | 12/14/2010 @ 17:11
I think it’s because most purist libertarians lack a normal degree of empathy, to the point of Asperger’s in some cases, an emotional state doesn’t describe the vast majority of women.

Severian, I’ve known several female potheads over the years. One happens to be my forty-six year old my schoolteacher cousin, she’s been getting baked on a (sometimes thrice) daily basis since she was a teenager. She lives for the bowl.

I don’t like her much.
- Daphne | 12/14/2010 @ 19:33
…most purist libertarians lack a normal degree of empathy…

I find this fascinating. Not because I disagree with you — I think you’re correct.

But in my case, my libertarian passions come from empathy. At least a weird messy hodge-podge mix of empathy and self interest. I hear Obama say things like “don’t worry about your taxes they won’t go up by one dime, I’m only raising them on the wealthiest one percent who make $250k or more.” And my thought is…oh my, I don’t make $250k, nevertheless if I could’ve been suckered into supporting you before, you just blew it buddy.

Here you are declaring war on a segment of the population — just out-and-out declaring your intention to injure them, and the rest of us shouldn’t worry about it because we’re not them. Just look the other way like Rev. Neimoller did in Nazi Germany.

How long before you come after me, you pompous gasbag?

If I didn’t have a shred of empathy, there’s a possibility I wouldn’t go down that road. I don’t think I’m alone.
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2010 @ 19:40
Morgan, I don’t see much libertarian in your politics, you’re a pretty solid example of traditional conservatism, which is a good thing. Although I wouldn’t mind if you got a little more freaky-deaky radical on occasion.

As your friend, I can honestly attest to your expansive warmth of heart, caring nature and wonderful ability to empathize and converse on matters not analytical. Your intelligent, hard-hitting commentary hides one hell of a sweet man.
- Daphne | 12/14/2010 @ 20:46
All of you are making this way too complicated.

Women as a group tend to be the “nurturing” type…or naive idealists. This is especially true of young women as opposed to older ones.

Nurturers and idealists tend to lean left and therefore, statist. They believe that “government needs to do something” about every little problem under the sun. They see victim-hood everywhere, always in need of government intervention. They’re naturally inclined toward socialism.

This mindset doesn’t lend itself toward either big-L or small-L libertarian thinking.

It’s much the same story with most racial minority groups, which explains the dearth of their numbers in the Tea Party movement. (Additionally, a lot of members of various minorities are on the dole and not interested in participating in a movement whose goal is to prune back socialist entitlement programs. Make of that what you will.)
- cylarz | 12/15/2010 @ 01:29

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Why do Women Hate Freedom?”Monday, December 13th, 2010

“Why do Women Hate Freedom?”
Monday, December 13th, 2010