That's
a New Republic article by Jeet Heer.
[T]he typical libertarian is a white man. These firm demographic contours cry out for an explanation since, at first glance, there doesn’t seem much intrinsically white or male about libertarianism. Proclaiming itself a philosophy of individualism, with no overt celebrations of either patriarchy or racism, libertarianism still ends up being monochromatic and male....
Jesse Walker, an editor at Reason magazine, agrees that the libertarian gender gap is real... Aside from computer programming, libertarianism overlaps with other male-dominated subcultures as science-fiction fandom, the gaming community, Men’s Rights Activists, and organized humanism/atheism. But this account simply raises another question: Why do overwhelmingly male subcultures feel an affinity for libertarianism?...
While libertarianism is rarely explicitly sexist, it is hostile to collective efforts to challenge sexism: anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, paid leave, and the broader net of social services that are particularly necessary to those who have historically been tasked with care-giving jobs within the family. No wonder women as a whole find little in libertarianism that appeals to them....
This [nostalgic] yearning for the America of the Robber Barons has little to offer most women (who might not want to return to a world where they couldn’t vote and had severely restricted social lives) or for that matter most non-whites (who might recall Jim Crow segregation)...
This is what I felt back in 2007 when I had my in-person interactions with a group of libertarians. From the archive:
"Where I was when I was out of my milieu."
"Responding to Jonah's response to that hot diavlog."
"Here's the post where I take on Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine."
"Adler, Drezner, and Levy try to close the glass window on debate, and I say, Aw, come on, you're not gonna say that now."
To put it very plainly and simply, to me, the libertarians lacked humanity and they were using their pride in their commitment to abstract ideas to resist examining the reasons why they liked the ideas they were wedded to. I think people like that would be very dangerous if they had political power. Intellectually, as people to converse with, I found them cold and rigid, not interested in talking about anything on the level that I am seeking, and creepily eager to insult me for being on the wrong level.
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215Woman-splaining is fun, ain't it, Althouse?
To put it very plainly and simply, to me, the libertarians lacked humanity and they were using their pride in their commitment to abstract ideas to resist examining the reasons why they liked the ideas they were wedded to. I think people like that would be very dangerous if they had political power. Intellectually, as people to converse with, I found them cold and rigid, not interested in talking about anything on the level that I am seeking, and creepily eager to insult me for being on the wrong level.
Wow. Tell us what you really feel!
To tell the truth, the strongest libertarian I've known gave me the exact same impression.
I think they just want an abstractly perfect my fault-your fault theory of justice, and lack the interest in understanding how people's individual interests and responsibilities get inevitably fused and mingled with each other. And yes, I found (them) "creepily" cold and impersonal when it came to understanding how they even came to developing their views.
"I'm either a libertarian-leaning conservative or conservative-leaning libertarian, depending on the issue and my mood,"
Libertarianism is an incoherent philosophy that is beloved by people who want to be seen as special snowflakes. See above.
Libertarians believe in "freedom" but of course, once you try to pin them down as to what laws they want repealed and what Government should be involved in, their answers are all over the map and contradict each other. That's why William F. Buckley and Bill Maher both could call themselves Libertarian.
And of course - as seen in this thread - any criticism of Libertarianism is met by the cry that "that's not true Libertarianism".
And most women are too grounded in reality to be attracted to abstract political philosophies that don't seem to benefit them except in some general abstract way.
How many women want to be "lone wolves"? Or be "rugged individualists"? Probably as many that want to be Stoics or follow Nietzsche.
"Libertarians believe in "freedom" but of course, once you try to pin them down as to what laws they want repealed and what Government should be involved in, their answers are all over the map and contradict each other."
Yup. There is a lot of diversity of opinion. We aren't anarchists so there is going to be some line drawing. Different libertarians draw their lines in different places, but as a general matter the line will be less government than conservatives as modern liberals.
"And most women are too grounded in reality to be attracted to abstract political philosophies that don't seem to benefit them except in some general abstract way."
All of this "women think about politics like THIS and men think about politics like THIS" nonsense is just complete and utter bullshit. Smart people of both sexes adopt all different political stripes. Morons of both sexes adopt all different political stripes. Give it a fucking rest people.
D.D.D. exasperated, "All of this "women think about politics like THIS and men think about politics like THIS" nonsense is just complete and utter bullshit. Smart people of both sexes adopt all different political stripes. Morons of both sexes adopt all different political stripes. Give it a fucking rest people."
Yes. Exactly.
I've known plenty of female libertarians, and libertarianism is such broad spectrum that includes people who don't even know that they fall in a libertarian spectrum.
Saying that libertarians "lack humanity" cries out for insults, and I did my best to lay them out. If someone was insulted because they think a huge group of people "lack humanity" then I don't care. We need to stop coddling idiocy and bigotry. Bigotry against libertarians is senseless because they are politically weak and unlikely to ever become otherwise. Go pick on someone else.
What's interesting is that after I school you about censorship, you immediately try to shut me up.
You schooled me on what? Your argument about censorship has little to do with the discussion of libertarian ideology.
And I am not shutting you up. I am simply suggesting you'd be better served to post your comments in a thread more germane to the discussion of abortion photography and film and whether or not it should/should not be on mainstream news programs or entertainment outlets.
If you'd like, I'll put a call out to the Libertarian Censorship Squad and tell them to cool out on forcing CBS News not to show more dead babies on TV.
"Libertarianism is an incoherent philosophy that is beloved by people who want to be seen as special snowflakes. See above."
Yes, exactly. That's me. Man of my own making. Oops. Special snowflake of my own making?
You would probably cop to being 'conservative', but what does that really mean? Can you define it as easily as you define Libertarians?
Are you a Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, HW Bush, or W Bush conservative? Or more a McCain-style one. They're all different, by the way.
rcocean:And most women are too grounded in reality to be attracted to abstract political philosophies that don't seem to benefit them except in some general abstract way.
How many women want to be "lone wolves"? Or be "rugged individualists"? Probably as many that want to be Stoics or follow Nietzsche.
100% correct. Bravo
"There has rarely been a better justified reason for war than our response to 9/11...."
What does this mean? Our response to 9/11 justified others making war against us? Our response to 9/11 justified our response to 9/11, (which was to make war)?
If you mean the 9/11 attacks justified our response--to make war against entities who had nothing to do with the attacks--that is self-evidently wrong.
"Jeet Heer"?
"Yes, once. The hot meatloaf sandwich was pretty good. I'd go back."
"You would probably cop to being 'conservative', but what does that really mean? Can you define it as easily as you define Libertarians?"
I can contrast Conservative positions and Liberal ones. They are opposites are a wide range of issues. Self-described Libertarians -OTOH - are on both sides of almost every issue, since almost all Libertarians say they are for "Freedom" and against "Government interference" EXCEPT FOR...
And so you have Libertarians constantly adjusting their so-called principles based on personal prejudice, self-interest, and reality. That's why William F. Buckley and Bill Maher could both call themselves Libertarian while differing on 90% of the issues. As a result its incoherent and people labeling themselves "Libertarian" tell the reader nothing, since it can mean anything.
If I understand correctly, our hostess took umbrage that people who believe in liberty are serious about believing in liberty. Sorry, Prof, you were wrong then and are wrong now.
female libertarian, btw
"If you mean the 9/11 attacks justified our response--to make war against entities who had nothing to do with the attacks--that is self-evidently wrong."
You mean Mouamar Khadafi? Which entities are you talking about, Robert Cook?
@Terry
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Post a Comment