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.
Posts
215 comments:
1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»Repeal the 19th !
Maybe men are smarter ?
Libertarianism is the ideology of the future- and always will be.
That's easy. Men naturally think using less emotion than women. Emotion clouds judgment.
Next question...
Maybe libertarians think science is more important than fashion, which turns off most women?
You will quite often find that personality among technical professionals, not just abstract ideologues. Programmers for instance, especially the better ones.
It is mainly personality. The subject of their obsessions can vary, as they can be annoying on all sorts of matters, and support all sorts of ideologies.
If you had been soaked in a milieu of engineers you would understand them completely.
Regrettably, Ayn Rand is not available for comment.
- Hammond; card carrying Libertarian
Men have to think of what is good for the tribe.
Women want to protect their own babies.
Yes men are smarter and much more rational. Do you think the disaster that is Obama could have ever been elected without the female vote?
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.
I agree and think this is true with many avid ideologues. Certainly so with many hard core leftists.
Why are Libertarians mostly dudes?
Because, generally, as a group, they favor liberty and danger over equality and safety.
Doesn't everyone know this?
I don't know about the white part. Is that even true?
People who don't want a say in how you live your life are dangerous?
While libertarianism is rarely explicitly sexist, it is hostile to collective efforts to challenge sexism:
False. It is hostile to collective efforts that use the threat of force to challenge ( or support ) sexism.
anti-discrimination laws,
Mostly true, although they would likely support laws that prohibit the government from discriminating.
affirmative action,
False. They oppose government mandated/enacted affirmative action.
paid leave,
False. They oppose government mandated 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.
False. They opposed government-run social services. They are fine with private, voluntary social services.
I'm libertarian. I love my wife and my children. I give money to charities. I sponsor a child in Guatemala. It disturbs me that social programs destroy lives. I try not to insult people online even when they clearly deserve it. The libertarians I know are not any different.
Men look at children and have it in the back of their minds that "I can always get another woman and make a few more of those."
Women do not see it that way.
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.
If you believe in freedom of the individual, then you wouldn't view those ideas as abstract.
I think people like that would be very dangerous if they had political power.
Yeah, God forbid people be allowed to do what they want, instead of what the collective wants from those people.
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.
If this is a shot at the large percentage of commenters to your posts, then you scored a direct hit. But there is a reason they're rigid - because freedom and liberty are not negotiable. The problem with liberals is that they think these concepts are. They're wrong. Oh well - there I go being rigid again.
By the way - I'd consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings, and not a complete libertarian.
I'm pretty neutral on Libertarians and I don't see them getting real power in the near future. I am intrigued by the gender correlation raised in this post. What I'd like to know is why the face of Democratic politics is overwhelmingly female and more or less looks like Hillary Clinton. That's a realistic scary thought.
I'm sorry, you don't find activist Republicans and Democrats eager to insult you when you don't see eye to eye with them? Or maybe it's just creepy that Libertarians who think you're thinking on the wrong level actually make sense, and that creeps you out?
As a Libertarian I think the argument that "It Takes a Village" to nurture healthy families quite persuasive. I just think confusing a village with an alphabet soup of governmental entities catering to easily pigeonholed special interests is kind of, well, stupid.
Does that make me creepy? Forgive me. At least I'm questioning your logic rather than your morality.
I consider myself very sympathetic to libertarian ideals, though I have no illusions that they can ever be more than a disposition in American politics. What's so obnoxious about Heer's article is that he is trying to draw conclusions about a philosophy and a movement that he has nothing but the most superficial understanding of.
I recall vividly Ann and Jonah's conversation on bloggingheads.tv and watched it when it was first uploaded. I am not a particular fan of Goldberg, but in that particular instance, he was right. Ann was acting batty and irrational and was not verbalizing any kind of coherent point. She was wrapped up in her own bruised ego, she was not hearing what Goldberg was saying to her.
Michael K beat me to it. Most women simply aren't as intelligent and are too focused on touchy-feelings that distract from their view of reality. Law professor women clearly are not excepted because they mistake a rational perspective for lacking in humanity.
Those who claim that this rationality is cold and lacking in humanity are wrong. Men feel emotions more strongly than women do, but because women can't control their emotions as well, they assume that men are unfeeling. Men do have emotions but know that emotions can be fickle and lead one astray. Women tend to have nothing but fickle reactions to whatever emotion they're feeling right now. Such women (and some men) are easily manipulated and should never be put in positions that of authority. Men who do not have a good grounding in morality are known to take advantage of these people, mobsters like to provide bread and circuses.
Libertarianism, objectivism, conservatism, are all variations on a theme that seek to impose a moral order on reason that has the best benefit to individuals and thus society. The alternative of using reason without morality results in fascism and other forms of tyranny.
Those who reject reason and instead rely on whatever they call "humanity" substitute wishes for a happy result without much concern for the path needed to get to the happy result.
Rumpletweezer said...
I'm libertarian. I love my wife and my children. I give money to charities. I sponsor a child in Guatemala. It disturbs me that social programs destroy lives. I try not to insult people online even when they clearly deserve it. The libertarians I know are not any different.
LOL. Me too, except ... Philippines.
the libertarians lacked humanity
On the surface, yes. But I doubt if you spent any serious time with one, you would see they share the same human qualities as most other people.
I'm a libertarian. I'm creative and emotional. I care about people. However, I do not see collective guilt or sacrifice as the best way to care for most people.
I am an individualist. Individualism is incompatible with sexism and racism. I don't use those lenses (outside of humor and snark really) to identify my fellow humans.
"lacked humanity"?
Ah yes. One of the great themes of literature: Man's Inhumanity To Man. Typically it involves something a little more lurid than wishing other people would leave you alone, but hey, maybe "inhumanity" means something different in Wisconsin.
I have sponsored a child in Tanzania.
Libertarians are helping to save the world one child at a time!
I think the phenomenon is best explained by overexposure to Superman comic books at an impressionable age.
Leaving aside for the moment the irony involved in using "inhuman" to describe a large group of humans, isn't it typically a synonym for "cruel"? Do you really think it's "cruel" to wish that other people would fuck the fuck off? Maybe encountering that kind of attitude -- "enjoy this society or you're not a legitimate human being!" -- is what drove people to libertarianism in the first place.
And then a day came when Bruce Jenner found himself unable to resist examining the reasons why he liked the ideas he was wedded to....
maybe "inhumanity" means something different in Wisconsin.
Great point, Dave. Want to see "lacking in humanity"? Look at the most collective regimes in history. Explain to me that the 20 million or so murdered in the name of Communism was more human than libertarians who would say that murdering people to force them to conform is wrong. Explain to me how Nazism was human by murdering 6 million Jews during WWII.
The LEAST collective regimes in the world don't rank in those numbers. And when they do, it's done in the name of collectivism in the first place.
Our hostess has described libertarianism exactly 100% backwards from the way it really is.
This one is easy:
It is because White males are the only ones not receiving goodies from the government nowadays.
How likely is it that you are going to see the government as the enemy, or a problem, if it continuously gives you stuff every month?
Women and minorities see the government as a combination sugardaddy/Santa Claus.
I am a libertarian. Libertarians of the republican variety might disagree. I am a libertarian for a strong safety net and social insurance regimen.
I overlap with the overlaps in that I am a man and a science fiction fan. I stand out being queer and of color.
That's a big reason why Ron Paul crashed and burned (except in his supporters' minds) in 2004 and 2008. His fans were so nasty and arrogant towards everyone who wasn't already in lockstep with everything they believed that everyone ended up hating them. It doesn't make me want to support your ideas when you insult me and heavily imply that you have the One True Ideology of Freedom and Liberty and if I don't agree with you I must be some kind of jackboot crypto-fascist. Which is how too many libertarians regard anyone who isn't as libertarian as they are.
I blame J. S. Mill for the utilitarian perception that deems itself somehow able to measure all that exists and to therefore able to dictate the greatest good for the greatest number. That idea is the arrogance behind Libertarians who see only what they want to see. Ergo: they are never wrong in their own eyes.
A community or family needs the glue of human love and comfort to make life worth living.
Those are not created at the will of a utilitarian dictate. They are where you find them in good men and good women. Good men and women are produced by the faith called Christianity.
What a lot of people lack is the quality of empathy, which is much misunderstood. The ability to imagine, with some accuracy, the thought processes and emotional reactions of another person. This is not some vague universalist feel-good concept, it is a genuine ability and extremely useful. Cortez, for instance, was a master in this - see Bernal Diaz' account.
Arguments like Ann describes are what happens when neither side has enough of that quality to make good arguments to each other.
It's not that complicated really.
1) If you're a minority, libertarianism means the gravy train comes to an end.
2) If you're a woman, especially a single woman, if the government isn't going to take care of you, who will?
3) Men, especially white men in America, take care of themselves, they don't need the government to care for them.
Not much more complicated than that.
Two libertarians who are not "cold and rigid", who certainly don't "lack humanity" and who are not at all "eager to insult me for being on the wrong level" are Megan McArdle and Virginia Postrel.
Did I detect a hint of bigotry in our host's musings this morning?
There are a lot of folks that I disagree with on one issue or another; I'm generally a live and let live kind of guy, knowing that we are all going to perdition down one road or another, and I don't mind if some individual chooses another highway.
That said I am uncomfortable around truly rabid ideologues of any stripe who, with all sincerity on their part, believe that they have the one true answer for organizing society.
I guess I don't stand out. I'm of white.
Dies it count if I'm not a libertarian either?
"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."
One of the refreshing things about libertarians is that none will ever produce a paragraph like this, even when faced with female opponents creepily eager to insult them for lacking humanity, being cold and rigid, etc., and whose notion of "dangerous" political power does not prevent voting for a "pragmatic" Prog Chicago thug.
In a nation of Takers, most libertarians will be dudes.
"A community or family needs the glue of human love and comfort to make life worth living."
Libertarianism does not end nor diminish either of those constructs.
Why do overwhelmingly male subcultures feel an affinity for libertarianism?...
It's not "why do overwhelmingly male subcultures feel an affinity for libertarianism" but "why are all these different things overwhelmingly male?"
A. It's because they are free from rules, or break rules, or create or deal with other possibilities than usual.
"Lacking humanity" is one of the most common and demonstrably false charges leveled against Libertarians. How is it inhuman to have a natural skepticism towards large centralized coercive power, even when that power is ostensibly beneficent? How is it inhuman to want people to be free to live there own lives the way they so choose? Why is individualism often thought of as heartless and collectivism often thought of as caring, despite the 100 million dead that collectivism left in its wake throughout the 20th century? How is compulsory charity in the form of welfare more "human" than voluntary giving? Why is reason sneered at and thought of as "cold" and "creepy"?
"Michael K beat me to it. Most women simply aren't as intelligent and are too focused on touchy-feelings that distract from their view of reality. Law professor women clearly are not excepted because they mistake a rational perspective for lacking in humanity."
I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation).
I'm generally sympathetic to libertarianism, but you're right about there being a lack of humanity in it. In it's pure form, it raises individualism to the level of a religion, its followers forget who is supposed to serve whom. That is, we embrace an economy, an order, a societal form to the extent that it makes us better in the ways we care about. We do not embrace them simply because that ways leads to greater purity of an ideology that sounds attractive.
In other words, while sympathetic to libertarianism, I am too practical to be a libertarian.
Libertarians will never take power because, frankly, we/they don't want it and think it's more than a little dirty.
But we're loud an obnoxious about our opinions because we think we're in the right and hopefully will influence the wretches who actually do want power and at least plant the seeds in everyone else's minds that maybe those big wooden horses should be left outside the gates.
I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation).
This is the exact reason we need to repeal the 19th Amendment.
She is objecting to your belief in rationality, and promoting irrationality, and worse thinks we are the ones with the problem.
Libertarians are not Vulcans. As others have noted, what is off-putting for many is that your generic Libertarian wants to be left alone and wants to be able to leave you alone. For many this seems very "alien", more so to liberals that believe it takes a village (where wonder of wonders, they are typically the Mayor, head Constable, Fire Chief, Magistrate, and tax collector).
"This is what I felt back in 2007 when I had my in-person interactions with a group of libertarians."
You interacted with a group of dedicated libertarian pundits and activists. I'm not at all surprised that you found them to be ideologues (just as you probably would a comparable group of progressives or conservatives). I have broadly libertarian views (socially liberal, economically conservative), but I can't really imagine attending or enjoying a 'Liberty Fund' conference either.
"Most women simply aren't as intelligent..."
Aren't as intelligent as what, most men?
So what? Every individual is at some level of intelligence (or varying levels relating to various mental tasks).
I think libertarians are simplifying the mental tasks they face, and one reason they may like being libertarian is that it allows them to feel intelligent. It's just like the way I feel physically stronger when I choose a flat terrain for my walks.
The idea that libertarians are mostly men because men are more intelligent is ludicrous. It would make more sense to say libertarians are mostly men because men lack emotional intelligence. Or: because men are more afraid of appearing unintelligent. Or: because men are more interested in having tools that make them feel dominant.
Ann wrote;
I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation).
At least you admit to being emotional in your conclusions, rather than rational. Kudos to that.
Not so much that you want to put forward the excuse, "Everyone does it" as if that makes it ok.
I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness.
Yeah, the idea that "Most women simply aren't as intelligent and are too focused on touchy-feelings that distract from their view of reality" is about as scientific as "scientific socialism," what Karl Marx said he was doing.
Tim wrote;
In other words, while sympathetic to libertarianism, I am too practical to be a libertarian.
This.
"Libertarian wants to be left alone and wants to be able to leave you alone. "
That's not quite it. Libertarians want to interact with all kinds of people...voluntarily. But they don't want to use political clout and the power of government to coerce you and don't want you to do that to them either.
A slavish relationship to dogma is not a defining characteristic of libertarians. Lots of groups share that trait. Members of all flavors of the Communist Party, especially after they grab hold of political power, are all about doctrine. So are Lutherans; although most of them tend to be Christians as well, which blunts the remoteness vibe.
Saul Alinsky thought that to get people to follow your cause, you should make it easy and fun. Democrats are the easy, fun, feelgood party. Our government should be easy and fun too, according to them. Obama phones. Free money to buy a new car with. Free health care. Easy and fun. Don't read it, just vote for it.
And you think that libertarian cold dogmatism is scary...
I'd think Richard Epstein's libertarianism would appeal to a law person. It accounts for the law from libertarian principles.
Some things are better done together, some things are not.
Activist libertarians deny the former, liberals deny the latter. Epstein says there's a principle that decides which is better for what, and calls it libertarianism in a classical sense.
"Better" means a higher standard of living owing to the structures that develop.
Perhaps we should be looking at the other side of the coin: why are women and minorities less supportive of libertarianism? Perhaps because those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action and preferences are in favor of continuing those programs. It's called rational self-interest. I suppose one can't blame them, though it does seem a bit selfish. Of course they rationalize their rent-seeking by claiming it's what's best for society. But that doesn't make it true.
Althouse, do you have enough self awareness to know that you are guilty of many of the same offenses you ascribe to libertarians?
Why do overwhelmingly male subcultures feel an affinity for libertarianism?...
This is the wrong question. More white men end up in libertarian activism because women and racial minorities have existing outlets for social political activism specifically designed to appeal to them. It would be shocking if a group that lacked a race/gender identity appeal wasn't disproportionately made up of those to whom no such appeal is made by other groups.
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 this makes them wrong? Perhaps a little humility might be in order ma'am?
I think libertarians are simplifying the mental tasks they face, and one reason they may like being libertarian is that it allows them to feel intelligent.
Could you enlighten us on what those tasks might be? Because honestly, Libertarians are wrestling more vigorously with the questions of what good government should do and should be than any other modern political movement.
Every time I hear someone complain about how "white" some movement is, it's always good to remind them that 65% of the population of the US is "white". Actually, probably more than 65% self-identifies as "white", since of the 16% that is Latino, quite a few of the historically assimilated Latino ethnicities (e.g. Cubans) now self-identify as "white" on a day by day basis. There are just a goddamn awful lot of white people to go around.
The other factor to consider is that "white people" are not ethnically nor politically as monolithic as the other racial groups. Blacks are politically monolithic, and while Latinos have a motley collection of ethnicities, the largest group by far are the Mexicans. No ethnicity "rules" white people like that. White people, too, are far more religiously diverse than are the other racial groups.
So, when you have anything outside the cultural norm, chances are it's going to dominated by white people. Within the group of white people, the gender preferences that cut across all ethnicities with remain in force.
So, who buys most of the classical & jazz in the US? White guys. Guys read more non-fiction & women read fiction. So, who buys the most books on history, philosophy, science, theology, etc? White guys.
It basically can't be otherwise. There just aren't enough minority bodies to go around. Here's a good link with the numbers.
Hagar said...
Men look at children and have it in the back of their minds that "I can always get another woman and make a few more of those." Women do not see it that way.
Not sure the average welfare case load would support that assertion.
Back in 2007 Althouse actually met with some large L Libertarians. They made her cry, if I remember correctly. She will never forget nor forgive.
kzookitty
To put it very plainly and simply, to me, the libertarians lacked humanity...
And the numbers of these subhumans are rapidly increasing! Whatever shall we do with them?! Ann tried to reach them, but was unable to stoop to their level! So I'm afraid the only solution left is the Final Solution! Too bad all the gas chambers are gone!
One more comment -- I'd also say that Althouse is a small-l libertarian without calling herself that. If she has socially conservative views (pro-drug war, anti-gay marriage) I certainly haven't seen them expressed. And if she's an economic progressive, I seem to have missed that as well.
...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.
"Dangerous". Lol. Libertarians are for the most part naïve white male spergs who don't understand political organization and power. Their touching devotion to absolute individualism and stateless free-agency just means that they're going to get stomped in the pit of tribal and identity politics that is contemporary American politics. Like lefties, they don't understand that their abstract political ideals arise from (and can only work in) a specific, historically-grounded cultural milieu. Unlike lefties, the very nature of their belief prevents the rank and file from ever organizing to gain power either for their own benefit, or for the pleasure of getting power and shoving their beliefs down everybody's throats. At best they can end up as prank monkeys on the payroll of the Cato Institute or sad degraded whores writing for The Economist.
If you're worried about inhumanity and pride and devil-take-the-hindmost, "don't bother me with predictable consequences" commitment to abstractions, if you want to see the really dangerous operators, one need look no further than modern leftists. Sure, their foot soldiers for the most part are "humane" (have soft heads), and appear as capable of abstract thought as a rhesus monkey, but the people leading them around, unlike libertarians, understand politics very well indeed.
Men look at children and have it in the back of their minds that "I can always get another woman and make a few more of those." Women do not see it that way.
Men have a very strong natural impulse to "continue the species." "Good" men know how to keep it repressed.
To put it very plainly and simply, to me, the libertarians lacked humanity
I was struck by Instapundit's publication of a pro-abortion editorial on Mother's Day. Was it a sort of declaration of war on the pro-life movement? Or is he just emotionally obtuse?
And I have never noticed any links to any pro-life article, or anything that might challenge his thinking on this issue. His mind is made up, and so he has shut it down. So from my perspective, he's not libertarian at all, but rather close-minded and harsh.
I have a similar criticism of Richard Posner. He thinks he's "libertarian," and then he's writing about baby markets.
"...the libertarians lacked humanity..."
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of most libertarians. It is humanity that drives many to libertarian principals. Not only does the government fail at improving humanity, it actually harms it in most areas. By allowing freedom and free markets to prevails, we believe more people will benefit.
^^That.^^ Also a conservative principle. Something more married women identify with.
Remember, it was us libertarians supporting gay marriage
And that's where we split -- changing the definition of words and opening the door to more government abuse. I have no problems with gay unions. I have huge problems with coercion by activists and government and the total disregard of other's 1st Amendment rights - i.e. - see Arlene's Flowers, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Memories Pizza, etc.
The idea that libertarians are mostly men because men are more intelligent is ludicrous.
Agreed. But the idea that libertarians are mostly men because on average men have a better balance between emotion and reason than the mix that your emotions have led you to consider ideal is actually very reasonable.
It would make more sense to say libertarians are mostly men because men lack emotional intelligence. Or: because men are more afraid of appearing unintelligent. Or: because men are more interested in having tools that make them feel dominant.
You're confusing what you want to believe with what makes more sense. Not the first time...
Remember that in the Planet of the Apes series, the revolution started when the first monkey said "no."
One of the upsides to being a small-l Libertarian is that you don't have to worry about "your team " all the time. You have to worry less about hypocrisy, too.
Yes, we'll never really be in power, but we can at least identify good ideas when we see them in the current political morass.
Emotional blindness is so wrong I suppose. It's like legal scholars and judges turning a blind eye toward legal decisions. So creepy.
I think the gender gap starts with interest in politics. It takes an effort to choose a political philosophy that isn't well know or defined. Depth level of interest in politics is greater among men than woman. Ergo, the higher the probability that men will dominate these niche parties.
Not wanting government to do all these wonderful things for people is inhumane. So, conservatives should also be labeled as inhumane.
I have this feeling that there would be a lot more libertarians and women libertarians if people knew where libertarians stand on all the key issues.
Todd said...
Libertarians are not Vulcans. As others have noted, what is off-putting for many is that your generic Libertarian wants to be left alone and wants to be able to leave you alone. For many this seems very "alien", more so to liberals that believe it takes a village (where wonder of wonders, they are typically the Mayor, head Constable, Fire Chief, Magistrate, and tax collector).
This is pretty close I think. Libertarians want a village, but they understand if government creates it for you your child care is provided by someone with the empathy and motivation of an impound lot cashier and the accountability of a unionized police officer.
You have to make your own. Sorry if that's hard, but it's the only way to get the kind of village the left is baiting you with.
Or: because men are more interested in having tools that make them feel dominant.
Can you please specify 'tools?' because I'm not sure libertarianism provides tools for dominance.
Pretty much the only thing TNR writes about nowadays is how this or that group they don't like is almost as white and male as, well, TNR.
I just realized I didn't like someone telling me what I could or could not do, outside of murder, etc.
Either in the bedroom (social cons) or in the kitchen (anti-soda progressives) I prefer economic and social freedom to most forms of collectivism.
It's not that hard, really.
"...the libertarians lacked humanity..."
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of most libertarians. It is humanity that drives many to libertarian principals. Not only does the government fail at improving humanity, it actually harms it in most areas. By allowing freedom and free markets to prevail, we believe more people will benefit. There are pros and cons with any form of government, but we believe there are many more pros towards the libertarian side.
Remember, it was libertarians supporting gay marriage (or the state's removal from the marriage equation so that gays could marry if they pleased), long before most on the left. What is more humane than that?
"No wonder women as a whole find little in libertarianism that appeals to them...."
So, the thesis is that women love coercion, and by God, if Women prefer that, then it's Right [see standard Althouse heuristic re. "if men and women differ"]?
Ah, the New Republic.
Not even understanding where the disconnect is, or what, and just running with the received wisdom.
"...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."
The self-awareness is weak in this one.
Gay marriage, Ann. Gay marriage.
C'mon Althouse -- Libertarian baiting? That is so cruel.
P.S., does it seem that Professor Althouse is purposely poking the hornets nest lately? It does make for fun comment sections.
"The idea that libertarians are mostly men because men are more intelligent is ludicrous. It would make more sense to say libertarians are mostly men because men lack emotional intelligence. Or: because men are more afraid of appearing unintelligent. Or: because men are more interested in having tools that make them feel dominant. "
Bullshit. Open your eyes and look at the world around you. A marvelous, prosperous, technologically ultra-sophisticated world BUILT BY MEN. You can take all the inventions of females and fit them on a postage stamp sitting in an acre of male inventions and creations. You're just another greedy egotistical perpetual adolescent insisting on credit for your gender which hasn't been earned, because YOU are a member of that group.
I would consider myself a "conservatarian", in that I'm primarily conservative with strong individualist leanings, but I also believe in God and in doing right by your fellow man. But doing right is not the same as a free-ride. I believe that if you are in ANY way capable of working, whatever that is (digging a ditch, mowing a lawn, sewing, washing windows, painting a picture, etc...) you should be expected to be responsible, take care of your own affairs, and only ask for help (read free-stuff) when circumstances truly beyond your control have put you in an impossible position, and ideally you should be asking people at your local church or your neighbors / community. The government should ONLY be involved in taking care of those not able to take care of themselves, when there is no one else willing and able to shoulder the burden first. Its a pretty simple and straight-forward philosophy, and not "inhumane" in any way conceivable.
I have this feeling that there would be a lot more libertarians and women libertarians if people knew where libertarians stand on all the key issues.
That's the rub. There's a spectrum with libertarianism. Some are hardcore isolationists. Others favor a less-interventionist but somewhat active foreign policy. There's no party diktats.
"Not so much that you want to put forward the excuse, "Everyone does it" as if that makes it ok."
It's simply a biological fact. Do some research on the brain and the nervous system.
@EDH,
The modern welfare system just obviates the need for a woman to make a man wish to stick around and protect her and her babies.
And it is a modern development and not the "natural system" humanity developed under.
It's simply a biological fact. Do some research on the brain and the nervous system.
I love it when Professor Scold comes out. It's fun.
"Back in 2007 Althouse actually met with some large L Libertarians. They made her cry, if I remember correctly. She will never forget nor forgive."
The post has links to the old posts about that experience. I'm not trying to bury that.
"And that's where we split -- changing the definition of words and opening the door to more government abuse..."
I would argue that this is a conservative stance, not libertarian. But so what? That is the great thing about libertarians, I don't think most of us are as ideological as Professor Althouse thinks. Most of us look at each issue individually and not as a collective. We are guided by our libertarian sensibilities, but not slaves to them. The opposite of what Professor Althouse claims about us making the issues easy.
I think people like that would be very dangerous if they had political power.
Yeah, nothing more scary than people who, if they gain power, promise to leave us alone.
Ann Althouse said..The idea that libertarians are mostly men because men are more intelligent is ludicrous. It would make more sense to say libertarians are mostly men because men lack emotional intelligence.
As an example of reasoning this doesn't really prove what you want it to, Prof. You argue: It's ludicrous to suggest that Ls are mostly men because men are more intelligent (with the hidden premise that more intelligent people are more likely to be Ls). It's not ludicrous to suggest that Ls are mostly men because men lack emotional intelligence (with the hidden premise that less emotionally intelligent people are more likely to be Ls).
Why is one ludicrous and the other not? Both are presented without any support, so shouldn't both be equally ludicrous, or equally likely? The situation where men are better in some way (taking "more intelligent" to be better) and therefore more likely to be Ls is ludicrous. The situation where men are worse in some way (taking "less emotionally intelligent" to be worse) is not ludicrous. Why? Is this an example of emotionally-motivated reasoning that I'm too feelings-stupid to get?
EMD wrote: Can you please specify 'tools?' because I'm not sure libertarianism provides tools for dominance.
Paul wrote: Yes men are smarter and much more rational.
There's your hammer.
Michael wrote: Maybe men are smarter ?
I Callahan wrote: Men naturally think using less emotion than women. Emotion clouds judgment.
sean wrote: Maybe libertarians think science is more important than fashion, which turns off most women?
Skyler wrote: Most women simply aren't as intelligent and are too focused on touchy-feelings that distract from their view of reality.
It's a whole box of hammers.
Brent:
American conservatism was established with The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. It is only negotiable in implementation, and Amendment, not principle. It is the former that creates a Libertarian state of dynamic stability.
Men are the breadwinners and providers, and so value the maximum freedom to do so. Women, who are the caretakers and have some sympathy for getting what they need from government.
Isn't that about it?
If you meet sixteen small business people at the coffee shop and they all self-identify as Republican (small town) or Democrat (small college town) it will feel very different from visiting the Campus Republicans or the Campus Democrats. If you meet a libertarian in a coffee shop, he will be sitting alone minding his own damn business. The people at those conferences, by virtue of getting together to talk about how things should be for society at large, are missing an essential part of the libertarian vibe.
Libertarians, at their best, are free spirits. They are not weeded to a particular ideology and constantly push against indoctrination.
Rand Paul is an amazing libertarian. Notice how he is refusing to conform to Republican orthodoxy. He's open-minded, a free thinker.
It's a whole box of hammers.
I suppose, but I was talking about practical tools and real dominance, not imagined.
"American conservatism was established with The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. It is only negotiable in implementation, and Amendment, not principle. It is the former that creates a Libertarian state of dynamic stability."
I must not be one of the more intelligent men, because that read as mostly gibberish to me.
If you are saying that the DOI and Constitution established the political ideology of conservationism, I disagree. There are many conservative principals that are not supported or addressed in either document. But we agree that the documents must be followed unless amended. So what?
Libertarianism supports an establishment of equitable law, that precludes creation and tolerance of monopolies and monopoly-like behaviors, especially those of an authoritarian nature; biased and prejudicial institutions; and other orientations that warp society, economy, humanity, etc. While it reconciles individual dignity and intrinsic value to favor the former (as does Progressive Liberalism), it also tolerates a social safety net that aids rehabilitation of able-bodied people, and sustains the less fortunate, with accountability that mitigates corruption of both providers and recipients. Where Libertarianism favors dynamic stability, Progressive Liberalism favors authoritarian stability. Unfortunately, most Libertarians are also pro-choice (as the philosophy favors individual dignity), that engenders a perception of inhumanity. However, unlike Progressive Liberals, and many/most Moderates, they do not maintain a pretense of moral righteousness, but rather a practical respect for individual human dignity (when it is no longer an abstract concept - "clump of cells", "fetus", "embryo", "non-viable", etc.). Finally, where dynamic stability may circumstantially lose its integrity, authoritarian stability is inherently a degenerative ideology with generational thresholds.
And I have nothing but disdain for "libertarians" who censor abortion photographs.
Sure, you deny the humanity of the unborn child. I get that.
But why do you deny your own ideology? Since when is censorship a good idea?
I posit that libertarians are cry-babies, and abortion photographs make them sad.
"And I have nothing but disdain for "libertarians" who censor abortion photographs."
Do you have a reference for that? I have not read or heard any accounts of this happening.
From Whitaker Chambers' review of "Atlas Shrugged," National Review, 1955:
From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber–go!”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213298/big-sister-watching-you-whittaker-chambers
I'm either a libertarian-leaning conservative or conservative-leaning libertarian, depending on the issue and my mood, so I'd like to think I have a little perspective on the issue here.
The cultural-Marxist answer to the question "why are L's mostly white guys" is easy, and several commenters have already mentioned it. L's are usually individualistic and believe in being responsible for their own outcomes--they should therefore be more comfortable with risk, etc, as well as more likely to defend the idea that they've earned their profits/rewards. That position is much easier to take if one is a member of a privileged class--if you have sufficient capital, access to wealth-generating networks, and the ability to put your talents to use you're more likely to adopt a political system that allows you to benefit from those traits. It's easy to support a cowboy ideal when you own a horse and a ranch, but the railroad worker would probably support something different.
You don't have to adopt the cultural-Marxist viewpoint to answer the question, of course, and you don't have to agree with it, but given the prevalence of that way of thinking (or "thinking") in our society it's useful to be able to understand it when necessary.
Why are so many entrepreneurs white guys? Entrepreneurialism (as opposed to corpratism, cronyism, etc) is a valued trait. If you're taking a value-neutral look at why white guys are overrepresented in the L population (and you naturally dislike Ls) maybe try asking why white guys are overrepresented in the E population. Bonus--some entrepreneurs jerks (overly driven, arrogant, narrowminded, etc). Hey, some Ls are, too!
Brent:
You introduced the use of semantic games to avoid adherence to principles, and asserted a class that exploits this fraud, but cannot support your premise based on commonly held principles or behaviors. American conservatism is recorded, as is Libertarianism. Criticism of a class is only legitimate when based on commonly held principles or uniform behaviors. As for a class being monolithic, or a philosophy being universal, that state of collective deference and perfection, respectively, does not exist in Nature.
To put it very plainly and simply, to me, the___(POLITICAL IDEOLOGY)s___ 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.
Mad Libbed it for you.
I put the Libertarians in the same bag as the Marxists. The ideology of both groups ignore the evident facts of human nature and hence their ideas tend to be abstract and theoretical rather than sensible.
My take is as follows (from largest to smallest):
Moderates - people who have no core beliefs but will support the current majority party especially if they are promised that majority party will be nice. And transparent.
Conservatives - people who like big government but are anti-abortion
Liberals - people who like big government but are pro-abortion.
Libertarians - moderates who are pacifists
Small government people - very few Americans. Programmers like me?
Favorite assumption in this article: if something is mostly white and male, it must be awful.
Ann Althouse said...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.
I won't excuse poor manners, of course, and I don't doubt Ls as a movement need to do a much better job of presenting themselves and their ideas in a respectful way. If I remember correctly was the dust up with the Reason Ls not at some kind of L conference where you were one of the few non-L members? Naturally Ls should be MORE kind to non-Ls they'd like to persuade, but could part of the particular reaction you received in that instance be explained by a reluctance to explain/defend their viewpoint in a setting they assumed would not involve much having to do so? If I go to a law conference and in conversation insist that Marbury was wrongly decided and everything following from it was therefore wrong I don't think the law profs would stay polite for very long.
Not specifically your situation, either, but as someone with L-leaning tendencies I can tell you what non-Ls seem to frequently START conversations (and all disagreements) with the assertion (spoken or not) that Ls are racists, sexists, etc. When someone begins a discussion by (at best) saying "ok, since we disagree on this and you're an L you must disagree because you're such a sexist racist homophobe--defend your position and prove you're not any of those things" it makes it a bit hard to have a civil discussion. Repeat that often enough and it's easy to have a knee-jerk response to pointed disagreement, whereby you assume the other person is accusing you of being a racist (etc) even when they're not (or at least before they do!). The result can be rude responses or insults--ruder than is appropriate for that situation and more insulting than necessary at any rate. I don't really have a solution for that problem and it's still L's responsibility to conduct themselves in a well-mannered way, but it's worth pointing out (to people who pride themselves on their compassion and open-mindedness) that people get tired of being called racists, sexists, homophobes all the time and may develop a too-tough skin as a result.
"If you meet sixteen small business people at the coffee shop and they all self-identify as Republican (small town) or Democrat (small college town) it will feel very different from visiting the Campus Republicans or the Campus Democrats. If you meet a libertarian in a coffee shop, he will be sitting alone minding his own damn business. The people at those conferences, by virtue of getting together to talk about how things should be for society at large, are missing an essential part of the libertarian vibe."
Good point. I had conference Libertarians. Also consider that when I am at the conference, I am kind of stuck there. It's not a normal social situation where you can move around and move on. Confined for hours and hours all day, for 2 days, including meals, with a bunch of libertarians who chose to engage in that behavior and who have a professional interest in promoting themselves under that label (e.g., Reason magazine people). It's not really a very good libertarian environment!
AA: The idea that libertarians are mostly men because men are more intelligent is ludicrous.
There's nothing inherently ludicrous in saying that "people who hold view X are mostly men because men are more intelligent". Some views correlate with higher intelligence, and the higher one goes on the IQ scale, the higher the proportion of males to females. (Says nothing about their correctness.)
The idea that libertarians are mostly men because men are more intelligent is ludicrous. It would make more sense to say libertarians are mostly men because men lack emotional intelligence.
It's easy to claim superior emotional intelligence if you believe people who don't share your emotions are subhuman.
It's not really a very good libertarian environment!
I'd hate to see you engage at a Marxist conference, then.
If you are a conservative (like me) or a libertarian, the Civil Rights Act should give you pause. Based purely on abstract principles, it is a federal intrusion far beyond what most small-government types would countenance. It is certainly an infringement on a business owner's freedom of contract. By upholding it, the Supreme Court interpreted Congress' power to regulate commerce very broadly, an anathema to a more conservative style of judicial reasoning.
On the other hand, it was absolutely necessary and the federal government was the only entity who could do it. Using almost any moral or ethical standard, it was the right thing to do. How does that square with a no-exceptions freedom and small-government philosophy? It doesn't. If you can't admit this, you are being rigid.
Saint Croix:
The scientific evidence, and, more so, the self-evident knowledge, of human life beginning from conception, is an inconvenient truth for men and women who adhere to philosophies that favor individual dignity. This includes Libertarians, and despite appearances to the contrary, it also includes Liberals, Progressives, Moderates, and others that rely on pro-choice doctrine. The common interest of all these groups is not human rights, but rather environmental stability. Where Libertarians and the latter groups diverge is in mechanisms to establish and maintain stability. And, of course, the left-wing groups (excluding classical Progressives) predisposition to establish authoritarian monopolies that invariably reduce liberty and ultimately dignity.
Do you have a reference for that? I have not read or heard any accounts of this happening.
I don't know how many articles Reason has published on abortion. But I can tell you, without looking it up, how many abortion photographs they have published.
Zero.
Ditto with Instapundit. Lots of links to abortion articles. Including his own Mother's Day pro-abortion article. But he doesn't link to abortion photographs, ever.
@Ann Althouse:
"It's not really a very good libertarian environment!"
Oh, Ann, come on. Were you being held against your will or being coerced to stay there? If not, then your last sentence makes no sense.
I'm so loving this comments section. "Why aren't more women libertarians?" And many apparent libertarians answer: "Because men are smarter." Gee. it's a real puzzle why more women aren't libertarians. I'm going to cogitate on this.
@Saint Crox:
You seem to have a very broad definition of "censor."
Tom wrote;
And many apparent libertarians answer:
Many?
Ann Althouse said...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.
What if they just disagree with you as to what those reasons are, though? Some commenters here are quick to say that your beliefs are driven by emotionalism or some feelings motivated by your personal life/situation. If they dismissed your stated reasoning on a topic and just said every time "well, you would think that, because of your hormones" or "sure, you feel that way, because of your family life" do you think you could get very far in having an open discussion with them? Note I read lots of comments here, so I know this does in fact happen! Telling someone "well, you only think that because xzy" isn't usually very helpful, especially when xyz is not something that will likely change. If I say "you think that because you're a woman" the discussion is more-or-less over, I won't have persuaded you, and we can't really move forward. Your response can only be defensive--"I don't believe this just because I'm a woman, I believe for reasons ABC." Combine that with an insult: "you think that way because you're a woman, and women are too dumb to understand physics." Would you feel friendly in that situation?
Ls say they have a given set of beliefs for whatever reasons they claim (R1). You disagree and say they hold those beliefs for different reasons (R2), and that the fact that they think it's R1 is because they haven't examined themselves sufficiently. You call their lack of examination (or their inability to perform it) cold and inhuman. You are in a way saying "you Ls are wrong about why you like what you like, and you're too dumb to understand why you're wrong. If you were more human (like me) you'd understand why you were wrong (and probably change your mind and agree with me)."
Disagreeing with someone about WHY they hold a given set of beliefs is a tricky business to begin with, and I'm not sure what the point of it is (I doubt it's persuasion). Combining that with an insult does not seem like a recipe for pleasant, civil engagement.
Matt said...
On the other hand, it was absolutely necessary and the federal government was the only entity who could do it. Using almost any moral or ethical standard, it was the right thing to do. How does that square with a no-exceptions freedom and small-government philosophy? It doesn't. If you can't admit this, you are being rigid.
We don't have to square to a no exceptions philosophy since we don't espouse one.
The CRA was justified because government had been perverted to enforce Jim Crow, so it was justified in that time and place even though in a better world it would not have been necessary.
"Oh, Ann, come on. Were you being held against your will or being coerced to stay there? If not, then your last sentence makes no sense."
I was constrained by social pressure and etiquette. But I did get up and leave the table after getting yelled at by one guy. It's not easy to do that.
But I did get up and leave the table after getting yelled at by one guy.
Why didn't you just yell back?
"I'm so loving this comments section. 'Why aren't more women libertarians?' And many apparent libertarians answer: 'Because men are smarter.' Gee. it's a real puzzle why more women aren't libertarians. I'm going to cogitate on this."
If you're a "liberal" (and by that I mean "tax happy, coercion addicted, power-tripping State fellator"), I'm going to assume you're kidding about the "cogitate" part, since emoting rather than cogitating is more the "liberal" thing. Me, I wouldn't say men are smarter than women but in my experience (your mileage may vary) women are more into feeling than they are abstract, rational thought. Most times I've debated politics with women--who are invariably "liberal" Democrats--their idea of a rational argument boils down to "Well, you may have logic on your side, but I FEEL my side is right! [Therefore I am right.]"
Interesting, there's a school of radical feminists who embrace the women-as-irrational stereotype, and think it's a virtue rather than a shortcoming. Logic is seen as just another product of the Dead White Male patriarchy.
tom said...I'm so loving this comments section. "Why aren't more women libertarians?" And many apparent libertarians answer: "Because men are smarter." Gee. it's a real puzzle why more women aren't libertarians. I'm going to cogitate on this.
Sure, but the inverse is also being asserted by others: "why aren't more women libertarians? Because women are more emotionally intelligent." Both assertions seem equally insulting if one believes in both intelligence and emotional intelligence and views both as valuable, no?
gbarto: If you meet sixteen small business people at the coffee shop and they all self-identify as Republican (small town) or Democrat (small college town) it will feel very different from visiting the Campus Republicans or the Campus Democrats. If you meet a libertarian in a coffee shop, he will be sitting alone minding his own damn business. The people at those conferences, by virtue of getting together to talk about how things should be for society at large, are missing an essential part of the libertarian vibe.
And while you're enjoying your libertarian vibe all alone in the corner of the coffee shop, those Republicans and Democrats are organizing to get the state to help them pick your pocket and restrict your freedoms. Hope your vibe is powerful enough to keep you safe from their depredations.
Disagreeing with someone about WHY they hold a given set of beliefs is a tricky business to begin with,
But quite common from the Left in my experience. Remember, the Right thinks the Left is mistaken, the Left insists that the Right is evil.
and I'm not sure what the point of it is (I doubt it's persuasion).
If the Right is evil, than anything I think, say or do against them is justified.
Combining that with an insult does not seem like a recipe for pleasant, civil engagement.
They don't want that. They want you to shut up and aggree of them.
You seem to have a very broad definition of "censor."
Journalists who hide facts and information in order to promote their ideology are not journalists at all.
You support abortion, and yet you can't look at one?
It's particularly embarrassing for libertarians to censor information. What ideology are you promoting, anyway?
I was constrained by social pressure and etiquette. But I did get up and leave the table after getting yelled at by one guy. It's not easy to do that.
@Althouse, please get in touch with fellow blogger Kathy Shaidle ("Five Feet of Fury"). She'll teach you how to look the guy square in the eye and tell him "you raise your voice to me again and I'll rip the ears off your head" so that everyone in attendance absolutely believes you will. It will help if you keep your voice low and your face expressionless.
Or at least buy a copy of Shaidle's book The Tyranny of Nice.
"Most women simply aren't as intelligent and are too focused on touchy-feelings that distract from their view of reality."
This may be the most asinine thing I have ever read on the internet.
Look, Skyler, I have the great fortune to know quite a few extremely intelligent, extremely competent women. They include not only my wife, the badass TV producer, but also a talented and respected construction contractor, an astrophysicist, a PHD sociopath utterly lacking in "touchy-feely" emotions, and a whole bunch of writers, including a Pulitzer finalist. All of these women are smarter than you, and libertarianism doesn't appeal to any of them.
I believe this is because they all lack confidence. It breaks my heart to see these strong, smart, talented women handicapped by fear and anxiety. My wife can wrangle a hundred asshole divas into making a TV show, but is intimidated by car salesmen and panhandlers. I met the astrophysicist because she asked me for help with math; no one is better than her at math, but she had a hell of a time allowing herself to believe that. The disconnect between what these women are capable of and what they believe themselves to be capable of is astounding.
You can't be a libertarian if you are afraid of the world. I don't know what it is that instills so many women with fear, but until someone figures out how to raise women to be confident, I don't think we will have any success selling them on libertarianism.
Why are anti-vaxxers mostly chicks?
"I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation)."
I wondered how long it would takeoff you to rise to the bait. Good work. It took a while.
I was kidding.
Sort of.
I don't know what it is that instills so many women with fear,
Maybe people like Althouse constantly telling them that the world is dominated by men who will rape you, discriminate against you and who hate you and want to enslave you?
but until someone figures out how to raise women to be confident,
How about telling them they are strong capable people who are every bit as powerful as men (even more so in today's political and social climate) and compete openly and fairly. We should also tell them it is OK to be a woman, and not some Pseudo-man.
"This may be the most asinine thing I have ever read on the internet."
Boy, you have to get out more.
Unelected rulers define human infants as sub-human property, and start issuing kill-rules.
Libertarians are all, "we'll censor the photographs for you."
Some people are willing to fight for freedom. Libertarians are more like, "pass the bong, please."
Big "L" idiotlogical Libertarians tend to be male supercilious ninnies, programmer types as buwaya puti put it. They function great in a perfectly contrived, imaginary binary universe. They tend to be misogynistic because women reject them until they accumulate enough money to attract the bottom feeders. Their excuse for not getting along with women is that the fairer sex is irrational, emotional and are intimidated by the binary nerds "superior" intellect. In actuality, women are put off by the Liberdweebian arrogance associated with their myopia driven ignorance. Plus, these curly-haired nancy-boys don't know how to resist staring at tits during conversation.
@Althouse, please get in touch with fellow blogger Kathy Shaidle ("Five Feet of Fury"). She'll teach you how to look the guy square in the eye and tell him "you raise your voice to me again and I'll rip the ears off your head"
I knew a lady once who tried something like that in an argument with a man and she went around the next six weeks with a cast on her extended middle finger. It was pretty funny and we all pretended to believe her story.
I guess my point would be that it is best not to threaten violence ever, but certainly when you can't back it up.
I am not a libertarian because I think that left to its logical conclusions, we would all end up back under the control of warlords again, after 800 years of incremental escape.
I still try not to tell other people what to do as much as possible and more than is comfortable.
I'm not saying libertarians are unprincipled.
They just really like weed.
Also, cheap prostitutes.
jamescbennett said...You can't be a libertarian if you are afraid of the world. I don't know what it is that instills so many women with fear, but until someone figures out how to raise women to be confident, I don't think we will have any success selling them on libertarianism.
Why are churchgoers mostly chicks?
The anthropological/sociological answer to why women across many cultures seem to be move religious was that it has to do with their traditional (in evolutionary terms) role as caregiver when that often meant having to watch one's young children struggle to survive in a hostile world when one was powerless to do much to help them (against diseases, famine, etc). Women naturally evolved to be less risk-loving and to care more about social cohesion (as a strong social network acted as insurance, etc) and also to get more comfort out of things like prayer and propitiatory rituals.
Since these days it's blasphemous to asset that perceived behavioral differences between the sexes have any biological basis I'm not sure if that explanation is still popular.
Ann,
I'd be interested in what you have in mind when you say "very dangerous" here. The dangers of Democrats and Republicans in power are manifest. At countless turns, they have imposed laws that (dangerously) restrict human autonomy. These include punitive laws against ingesting proscribed substances as well as -- your bug, I gather -- punitive laws that limit free association in commercial affairs. People who violate these laws face the very real "danger" of going to prison for conduct that harms no one.
I get that libertarians rub you the wrong way. They're outliers, and outliers tend to be unusual people. That's a very different matter -- though it's the point that socially well-adjusted people seem to get hung up on -- than this "very dangerous" assertion. So my question is: What could libertarians do, while remaining nominally "libertarian," that would be more "dangerous" than what's already come to pass?
By the way (and I'm really asking) how can a man respond to this post with disagreement without engaging in "mansplaining?"
I haven't read the comments yet, but I have the feeling that someone named Ayn Rand might take exception to your "white male" characterization of libertarianism.
"You're too emotional to understand why your political view is wrong" is insulting.
"You're too prideful/in love with your self-image as purely rational to understand why you hold your beliefs" is insulting.
It's not easy to disagree with the origin (much less the validity) of someone else's beliefs without being, at a minimum, condescending.
I do not doubt that Libertarians have insulted you when you disagreed with them. Do you recognize the condescension inherent in your argument against them, Prof?
By the way (and I'm really asking) how can a man respond to this post with disagreement without engaging in "mansplaining?"
He can't. "Mansplaining" is a clunky non-word that feeble-minded women hide behind rather than acknowledge the paucity of their arguments.
I don't recall Althouse ever using the term, to her credit.
They just really like weed.
Also, cheap prostitutes.
Free markets!
I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness.
Now I've lost track of whether emotions are taken to be good or bad.
Best line in You've Got Mail (Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks) : "Don't cry, shopgirl."
Apparently, when a racially, socially, and ideologically pure group of Danes moved to an empty island, Iceland, they managed to make libertarianism work for a couple hundred years before they all begged for the king to come back, so it is good to go as a political system for the United States!
YoungHegelian,
So, who buys most of the classical & jazz in the US? White guys. Guys read more non-fiction & women read fiction. So, who buys the most books on history, philosophy, science, theology, etc? White guys.
Enh, I have probably the best classical music recording collection in Salem, OR (not saying a lot, I know), and a huge collection of books on music and music-making. And I'm not a white guy, though admittedly I'm married to one. Admittedly he's bought more non-fiction recently, though; I'm busy shoring up the vast collection of mysteries.
Best line in Althouse's posts There's no last word in blogging!
Jamescbennet wrote, "Look, Skyler, I have the great fortune to know quite a few extremely intelligent, extremely competent women. They include not only my wife, the badass TV producer, but also a talented and respected construction contractor, an astrophysicist, a PHD sociopath utterly lacking in "touchy-feely" emotions, and a whole bunch of writers, including a Pulitzer finalist. All of these women are smarter than you, and libertarianism doesn't appeal to any of them.
"I believe this is because they all lack confidence."
Sure, there are plenty of smart women out there. The smartest person I've ever met was my girlfriend when I was studying for the LSAT. I did pretty well enough on that test, consistent with every other intelligence test I've ever taken, but it is a very rigorous test. Reading each question and laboring over them I managed to do well. The girlfriend asked me to read the questions to her out of curiosity. With no preparation, no explanation, she got every question right instantly. Brilliant lady. But she had no ambition and no confidence. Does that factor into over all intelligence?
I'd say, and I admit that it is circular and intentionally so, that part of intelligence includes confidence. Intelligence includes not being touchy feely. Being touchy feely, to me, means that you are willing to ignore truth and evidence and rely instead on feelings. This might make touchy feely people upset, but I don't intend to not make touchy feely people upset.
Perhaps you would argue that intelligence is not quite the right word to use. I would concede that if a better term were available that has the same impact.
Ann sniffed, "I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation)."
I didn't know that entertainment was part of being right.
As for danger, yes, that is exactly the point. Men are dangerous. We need to be civilized or we are incredibly dangerous. It is the point of civilization to keep people well behaved. The question is how to do that. Do we keep people behaved by relying on a strong man? That works for short periods of time and then at what cost? Or do we keep people behaved by relying on an ethic, such as the rule of law and individual freedom?
"I am not a libertarian because I think that left to its logical conclusions, we would all end up back under the control of warlords again, after 800 years of incremental escape."
I am a libertarian because I don't like being under the control of warlords with really generous pensions.
I'm so loving this comments section. "Why aren't more women libertarians?" And many apparent libertarians answer: "Because men are smarter." Gee. it's a real puzzle why more women aren't libertarians. I'm going to cogitate on this.
Neat game. Can I play?
I'm so loving this comments section. "Why aren't more men liberals?" And many apparent liberals answer: "Because men, especially white men, are the cause of most of the world's ills." Gee. it's a real puzzle why more men aren't liberals. I'm going to cogitate on this.
Uh oh, I sense another round of crying coming on from Althouse.
Ann Althouse spewed...
"the libertarians lacked humanity"
the precursor for gas chambers, dehumanizing your fellow man.
Great going Ann.
Big "L" idiotlogical Libertarians tend to be male supercilious ninnies, programmer types as buwaya puti put it. They function great in a perfectly contrived, imaginary binary universe. They tend to be misogynistic because women reject them until they accumulate enough money to attract the bottom feeders. Their excuse for not getting along with women is that the fairer sex is irrational, emotional and are intimidated by the binary nerds "superior" intellect. In actuality, women are put off by the Liberdweebian arrogance associated with their myopia driven ignorance. Plus, these curly-haired nancy-boys don't know how to resist staring at tits during conversation.
jamescbennett - it's ironic that you categorized the one lame statement you read above as "the most asinine thing I have ever read on the internet." It didn't even take a couple of hours for Howard, our sometimes lefty commenter, to knock that one out of the park with the mound of stupidity he spewed...
Howard.. fuck you.
Chip said: "So my question is: What could libertarians do, while remaining nominally "libertarian," that would be more "dangerous" than what's already come to pass?"
Good question.
"Regrettably, Ayn Rand is not available for comment."
Thank god.
Robert, card-carrying non-Libertarian and non-card carrying atheist.
"Yes men are smarter and much more rational."
A comment that displays an irrational belief.
Free markets!
It seems to me, if we are going to wipe away crimes, and make it legal for people to smoke crack, or engage in prostitution, or stab unwanted babies in the neck, at a very minimum we should require our freedom-lovers to be honest. Give people information and let them decide. Don't hide the truth. If crack is dangerous to people, if it's harmful, libertarians should not be hiding these harms. If abortion kills a baby, libertarians should not be censoring this violence.
Socialists, libertarians, feminists--all sorts of people support abortion. But why are we censoring these photographs? And libertarians in particular should be asking this question. Socialists and feminists are quite happy with censorship, with the heavy-hand of ideological control over the media. But why are libertarians participating in this dishonesty?
" Confined for hours and hours all day, for 2 days, including meals, with a bunch of libertarians who chose to engage in that behavior and who have a professional interest in promoting themselves under that label (e.g., Reason magazine people). It's not really a very good libertarian environment!"
It's why I'm a classic liberal(Outlaw!), There aren't any meetings and shit.
There is a pretty extensive reading list though.
"Perhaps you would argue that intelligence is not quite the right word to use. I would concede that if a better term were available that has the same impact."
I think the word is "leadership", or maybe "charisma". Judging from my experience at work, people seem to equate good leadership skills with intelligence for some reason. People here consistently believe that the executives are smarter than the engineers. Not being a member of either group, I can tell you it's not even close. The execs are all of above-average intelligence, but they aren't anywhere near the same level as they engineers. The execs are all more confident and articulate, however, so they come off better than engineers in social situations, but i know a lot of dim-witted actors who would outshine the execs socially.
I don't yell in restaurants.
Gahrie said...
AA: I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation).
This is the exact reason we need to repeal the 19th Amendment.
She is objecting to your belief in rationality, and promoting irrationality, and worse thinks we are the ones with the problem.
Sieg Heil, Comrade. The chicks loved Hitler.
Saint Croix said...
It seems to me, if we are going to wipe away crimes, and make it legal for people to smoke crack, or engage in prostitution, or stab unwanted babies in the neck,
Now you're just lying.
at a very minimum we should require our freedom-lovers to be honest. Give people information and let them decide.
Require? Who does the requiring? Spoken like a true statist - all those poor citizens who aren't as smart as you need to be educated and taken care of by superior people like you.
Don't hide the truth. If crack is dangerous to people, if it's harmful, libertarians should not be hiding these harms.
They don't. Gov't drug thugs generate bogus scare stories, then the MSM parrots them because people like to read scary stuff. Apparently you're just used to it.
If abortion kills a baby, libertarians should not be censoring this violence.
They don't. And a lot of libertarians are against abortion because the essence of libertarianism is "No force or fraud", and consider the baby/fetus to be a person.
But why are we censoring these photographs? And libertarians in particular should be asking this question.
There is no censorship going on.
I consider the belief in your strict rationality to be an emotional phenomenon accompanied by emotional blindness. I think that is both dangerous (in power) and boring (in conversation)....I was constrained by social pressure and etiquette. But I did get up and leave the table after getting yelled at by one guy.
He saw that he couldn't reach you with reason, so he tried emotion. I should think you would approve of that.
Whoah. I just read the Althouse/Bailey flamewar.
Losing your cool, accusing everyone of being a racist, calling another woman a "lightweight," and crying are not signs of "emotional intelligence." Unless emotional intelligence has come to mean "having no ability to regulate your own emotions."
"So my question is: What could libertarians do, while remaining nominally "libertarian," that would be more "dangerous" than what's already come to pass?"
Start World War Three.
Capital-L Libertarian: People are able to determine their own best interests better than anyone else. Therefore it is in their best interests to vote libertarian.
Voter: ?
@Ann Althouse:
"I was constrained by social pressure and etiquette. But I did get up and leave the table after getting yelled at by one guy. It's not easy to do that."
Social pressure and etiquette are two perfect examples of ways that human behavior can be managed without the coervice threat of force that the state provides. Nothing illibertarian about that at all.
However, in your larger point, I do agree that attempts at organized libertarianism usually end with any sensible person knocking their head against the wall.
"Start World War Three"
You mean by not getting involved in other countries' civil wars? Toppling governments? Heavily supporting pro-American dictators or royalty with money and weapons? Yes, that surely will start another world war.
Saint Croix is really putting fire to those big-time Libertarian straw men.
From the original Bailey post:
"I came away surprised that some people, especially the libertarians, were hardcore, true believers, wedded to an abstract version of an idea and unwilling to look at how it played out in the real world"
Real world? Can you please please please inform me when actual libertarian thought and policy have been played out in the real world? Where it has been applied at a federal or even state level? We as a society have basically been trying varying forms of massive government intrusion for the past 90 years under the guise of helping people.
Libertarianism is fine as a philosophy, but too often as we have seen since 9/11, its adherents ignore sense and insist on an irrational version of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is not the same as pacifism, and that's what the Pauls seem to want. There has rarely been a better justified reason for war than our response to 9/11 but the libertarian party's immediate response was to denounce the United States for enticing the attacks. That's when I realized that the party is insane.
As for the philosophy, it is the only justifiable one, especially given the freedoms we cherish in this nation.
There is no censorship going on.
oh yes there is
in newsrooms across the country
you will not see photographs of aborted infants, not on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, 60 MInutes, New York Times, Washington Post.
not ever, not even on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade
the violence is denied while simultaneously hidden
government authorities say "non-person" and the media says
nothing at all
@MDT,
Enh, I have probably the best classical music recording collection in Salem, OR (not saying a lot, I know), and a huge collection of books on music and music-making.
You, madam, are in this, as in many ways, the proverbial rara avis. If you can find an example of that now near-extinct species, a record sore clerk, ask them who most of the customers, and almost all the serious ones, were in the jazz & classical departments. The answer: middle age white guys. There will be some middle & upper class black guys who buy jazz. The women come in and buy something that they're specially looking for, or that they like. But the guys, they'd come in & buy from the viewpoint of completing a collection, e.g. Miles Davis bootlegs, or something hauled up from some European archive that featured a 19 year old Phillippe Entremont. And don't even get me started on the opera guys, who'd buy recordings of their favorite diva singing Blondie songs while in the shower.
I had tons of friends that worked at record stores. I met them because I, too, bought so many damn records that we had the time to get to know each other & a ready-made shared interest, that bedrock of male friendship.
For what its worth,
I used to get a somewhat similar vibe, of the coldly, rigidly, narrowly fanatical, from the college Maoists of my youth. This was in the Philippines, where it is the national imperative to get along, come what may. Filipinos value a user friendly interface in personal relations. The intellectual Maoists were quite alien in that respect.
Brent wrote:
"You mean by not getting involved in other countries' civil wars? Toppling governments? Heavily supporting pro-American dictators or royalty with money and weapons?"
No.
There are many breeds of "libertarians", and having been to a few gatherings back in my college days, no shortage of women. For my part, I'm a follower of Ayn Rand, on the fundamental philosophical issues. A lady, not a gentleman, as you will note.
But philosophy shouldn't be about racial and sexual bean-counting. A thousand Frenchman can be as wrong as one, as the saying goes.
It's unfortunate that in our hostess' limited exposure to libertarians, she found them less genial than the ones I know. But, again, matters of philosophy are about the ideas themselves, not whomever is speaking them on any given occasion. (For example, I'd not want Rand Paul to be president, but I don't discount what ideas I share with him simply because I dislike his temperament.)
@Saint Crox:
"you will not see photographs of aborted infants, not on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, 60 MInutes, New York Times, Washington Post. "
Those organization all have a right to decide what they want to show and what they don't want to show. That's not censorship. Censorship would be the state coming in and telling them they could not show those photographs. Then you would actually have some kind of point. But anyone who wishes to see that kind of photographic material is free to seek out and be exposed to it. It takes about 10 seconds worth of Googling.
Does one need to witness an execution before he or she is allowed to have an opinion on it as a matter of policy?
Libertarianism appeals to the unusually intelligent and the antisocial. There are significantly fewer women than men in both categories.
in newsrooms across the country
No doubt run by true-believing libertarians.
"It's unfortunate that in our hostess' limited exposure to libertarians, she found them less genial than the ones I know."
I think you should read Bailey's account:
http://reason.com/blog/2006/12/29/grande-conservative-blogress-d
We have two very different accounts of the same incident. I like reading Bailey. I like reading Althouse. So who do I believe? I tend to believe the person that was not accusing others of being racists (which is such a lame, cheap attack) and the one that did not break down into tears. Ann's behavior was simply not the way that grown-ups behave.
None of us were there so we have to rely on the eyewitnesses. In weighing credibility, I find Bailey account more credible and its not particularly close.
Those organization all have a right to decide what they want to show and what they don't want to show. That's not censorship.
Of course it is. It's self-censorship. But I'd also argue it's conformity to a larger mindset that has been dictated to us by our unelected authorities.
Speak truth to power? Ha! More like suck up to power and hide the bodies so people don't get upset.
But anyone who wishes to see that kind of photographic material...
my objection is not that people are being deprived of our wonderful abortion porn.
my objection is that our authorities are insisting that these babies are not people, while our media censors all of this violence on a (utterly correct) assumption that people will be appalled once the truth gets out.
And the hypocrisy is damning. Ask this guy.
"my objection is that our authorities are insisting that these babies are not people"
Do it on another thread, one about abortion. This is about Ann's ideas about libertarianism. You're off topic.
Women tend to be nesters while men are hunter gatherers, so women value the colllective and security in groups while men prefer freedom and individualism. It's biology.
Every single female libertarian I've ever met has been very masculine. It's uncanny.
"Why are libertarians mostly dudes?"
For the same reason most philosophers, mathematicians, engineers, prison inmates, and serial killers are dudes.
Ann's behavior was simply not the way that grown-up men behave.
FIFY
Do it on another thread, one about abortion. This is about Ann's ideas about libertarianism. You're off topic.
What's interesting is that after I school you about censorship, you immediately try to shut me up.
For the more open-minded libertarians out there, here's a question. Why did this movie not run on network television?
I Callahan: Thank you for your kind words, however, you are quite wrong. I hit the nail on the head and I can prove it to you. I perfectly described Alex, who was udderly shocked and offended that someone would call him out that he retorted with the most lame blog response in this universe:FU
Because women don't want to run nekkid through the Vermont hills waving their rifle over their head and shouting "I'm free! I'm free!"
Although I know plenty of women who self-identify as libertarian without being Libertarians, just as I know plenty of smart women who don't associate with MENSA.
"Libertarianism appeals to the unusually intelligent and the antisocial. There are significantly fewer women than men in both categories."
You need to visit Tumblr and Reddit. Stacy McCain's just one man, he can't quote them all.
Post a Comment