I often get asked about the lack of women in the libertarian movement.
There have been countless articles written lately on why our movement has failed to attract large numbers of women. Caitlyn Bates believes that it’s because we have not focused enough on social issues like gay rights. James Padilioni Jr. thinks that we need more empathy in our arguments for liberty. Kelly Barber writes that it’s because women have been historically oppressed. And Kevin Boyd blames the creepertarians (creepy libertarian men who inappropriately hit on women.)
All of these articles make good points and perhaps there are numerous reasons that men far outnumber women in the liberty movement.
But I believe the main reason is simpler and possibly politically incorrect: libertarianism isn’t exactly considered mainstream (yet.)
Compared to men, women tend to be more social and care more about what people think about them. They are usually very concerned about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers. Most women do not want to be associated with something that is considered “weird.” And let’s face it: libertarianism is still considered “weird” to mainstream society (though that has started to change.)
I often get strange looks from people when I tell them that I am a libertarian. Some people have heard of the term, some people have not. But most people have no idea what it means to be a libertarian. They really only know about the two “normal” political viewpoints: liberal and conservative. Libertarians don’t fit into neat little boxes.
Men tend to be less social and care less about what people think of them. They don’t care if society doesn’t view them as “normal.” Their interests tend to be more obscure. Compared to women, more men have “nerdy” interests like video games, comic books, computers and sci fi. They are also more likely to dabble in “alternative” religions and political philosophies.
I assume most people found out about libertarianism on the Internet. Women are more likely to visit popular culture websites and connect with their peers on social media. Men are more likely to look at “nerdy” websites that discuss views that are outside of the mainstream like libertarianism.
If we want to increase the number of libertarian women, we need to make liberty mainstream. Make it part of popular culture. Make it— well, not weird. We can do that without changing our beliefs. We need more libertarian musicians, filmmakers, authors, actors, artists, etc.
Over the past couple of years, libertarianism has become more normal. We are becoming less of a fringe movement. I’ve noticed a growing number of libertarian women since 2007. This trend should continue as long as we keep spreading the message and expand into popular culture.
*Of course, everyone is an individual and they do not always conform to gender stereotypes.
julieborowski.wordpress.com 
Pingback: Why Are There so Few Libertarian Women? « LittleMargaretNan
“Creepertarians”? Is creepiness more widespread in our beliefs than in others? I certainly hope not as that would certainly keep us on the fringe.
Perhaps an immature adolescent might pull this “Creepertarians” behavior off. However, life’s lessons have proved that this sort of behavior is far and few. In a nutshell, I don’t think Kevin Boyd’s reasoning holds any merit. Kelly Barber need prove “women are oppressed” on a scientific and scholarly review (non bias review only). For the record, substantiated non bias facts refute female oppression. Julie is on point in my opinion.
Julie,
Recently, on a podcast called Point of Inquiry, a psychology professor was interviewed with respect to a study on libertarians. I think you might find it interesting. Click here to listen: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/peter_ditto_morals_facts_and_libertarians/
The above page links to a study about libertarians, which suggests that libertarians have a “dispositional lack of emotionality” among other things. If this is true and given that women tend to be more emotionally expressive, than perhaps this explains why libertarianism appeals to more men than women.
I beg to differ… only because I have been around the left, small earthy groups, socialist groups and communist groups and yet they all seem to get their fair share, perhaps even more than 50%. I think the reasons are both that we fail to Hit the “Empathy” button when selling Liberty, but we also fail to hit “Imagine 10 years from now” button when selling Liberty — by which I mean, imagine 10 years with more liberty, a non dystopian vision, which is sorely lacking in the libertarian world. I know for one thing, is so rare that I often wonder if they really exist. If I found one who is intellectual and well read, I wouldn’t know what to say but smile and listen… lol
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say its because women, as a general category, but obviously not all of them, are inclined not to, at their core. What kind of people, besides those at the top and in the various outposts of bureaucracy who lust after power and wealth, besides people who are merely duped into their phony statist arguments, like the state to be there for them? Its people who genuinely are in need of protection. In many cases the state is simply not capable of giving this, but it convinces people that it is. And on the few fronts where it does have this capability these “services” come at great cost to the unprotected classes (some of which may be oppressed, but plenty of others simply get by on their own and are not in need of special privilege, although this does not mean they don’t get it at times). And women, for whatever reason (and there are many theories, ranging from the theological to the evolutionary to the sexual to the socio-political), tend to be more in need or think they are more in need of protection. And if they can’t get it from men, there are only so many other places they may turn, and one of them is the state, which is always there with open arms to coddle those who think they are in need of it. I won’t be politically correct by unequivocally claiming this is not in some ways a sexist argument, but I think it holds water. Whatever the answer is, however unheard of or offensive it seems on the surface, it should serve as a way to better understand how to multiply the liberty movement, rather than divide it. Men have plenty of their own statist shortcomings. Going to war comes to mind.
Interesting ideas, Julie.
I think you’re definitely on to something, and I suspect it could be made a bit more scientific with an analysis using Meyers-Briggs personality typing or something similar. It has been suggested that libertarians tend to fall under the Intuitive-Thinking temperaments (NT), and especially the INTJ and INTP types. In my experience, this seems to be true. These are people who are always thinking, challenge authority, are internet savvy, and who desire systems that make logical sense.
Well, these types are a small minority of the population, and within that group, men outnumber women about 3 to 1. See this page for some personality type statistics by gender: http://www.theanconas.com/MBTI/mfstats.htm. Not only does this explain the lower number of women in the liberty movement, the introverted/intuitive tendency is why we have such a hard time getting noticed.
Loved it. 🙂
you are also wrong about this, the main reason women get involved in any non-women’s movement is men bring them out.
I’d say Brian is getting closer to the source of the issue. As a female who leans libertarian, I can tell you that most of the libertarian men I run across are weird. The RP wing is definitely full of the nuttiest people I have ever met. They can’t put a complete idea together and then they argue with you even when we agree. Any normal woman would run the other way when encountering these freaks. As an engineer, I am used to having highly theoretical conversations. And, thankfully, I am able to bring it back to reality. For most libertarians, there is no reality. They are so far right on the political curve, they are mostly leftists/anarchists. Their version of utopia is downright scary because it could easily become dictatorial. They are pretty stringent about how a libertarian society must work that to think any different is considered hostile – even if you agree on 99% of the issues. That type of mentality means I will quickly lose my life and liberty. I am not willing to give up my Liberty to be a libertarian.
I did a little search for celebrities who are libertarians and found a small list of them…but alas no women. Perhaps if they weren’t so scared of rubbing the liberal Hollywood crowd the wrong way they might be a little more open about it. Here is the list I found: http://www.libertarianism.com/pop_celebrity_list
I agree with everything you say…most of what I got, even as a guy, was being called a Ronbot or crazy or what have you…I can imagine what someone else, such as a woman, might think if they were attacked so openly about what is basically a strong belief in the Constitution, Capitalism, and Rule of Law…you know the things the country was founded on. There are a lot of Strong women on RT…and the more popular that alternative source of news and information becomes the easier it will be for all of us Libertarians, especially the women who deserve to have their voice heard.
Creepertarians? HA! I’m glad I converted from neocon to libertarian once I was already married. Great post!
Another politically incorrect answer may be evolutionary psychology. The fact that women are more vital to evolution and survival of the species than men (one man can make lots of babies, but not the other way around) the distribution certain types of female genes tends to be more clustered around the mean. Men on the other hand, while sharing the same mean, have a distribution that is more spread out on both tails. Women therefore would tend to be more conservative (not politically, but rather in terms of risk-taking) while men would be more willing to take risks….to fight off the saber-toothed tiger while the woman remains in the cave. Libertarianism comes off as a very risky political ideology. We are asking people to support a type of social organization that has largely never been tried based primarily on the logic of it (with some empirical backing). People who are naturally risk adverse are going to be very reluctant support libertarianism as it doesn’t offer a “guarantee” that: the poor will be taken care of, children won’t go hungry and will get an education, etc…
Of course the state’s guarantee isn’t worth anything either (see the social security system).
But its up to make a compelling enough case to get women over their reservations and show them that statism is the greater risk and liberty can and does work better to satisfy all of their concerns.
Speaking from personal experience I have met quite a few, while not libertarian, liberty minded women. They don’t tend to go about wearing it on their sleeve, I believe this is where the peer pressure aspect of your argument comes in. In talking with these women it turns out that many were ignorant of libertarianism or, if they had heard of it, did not understand it and thought we were all just a bunch of wing nuts.
women do what the feminist herd tells them to do. Few have the courage to defy it
There’s a lot of different stuff going on here.
A major part of this is that, throughout human history, women have been socialized to expect provision and protection from society in general and from men specifically. With the advent of second wave feminism (that virulent strain of cultural Marxist, gynocentric, misandrous identity politics that defined the women’s movement in the 1960s and held sway for twenty years or so – and still does today in some quarters), the source of this provision and protection was shifted from men to the state and, accordingly, the latter has been heartily embraced by women. Add to this the deeply rooted sense of self-righteous entitlement that comes with being a member of a “victim” class. Thus women were enabled to enjoy provision-by-proxy while being free to demonize and marginalize the true source of their provision. For a woman born and raised in such a climate, libertarianism represents an attack on what she sees as the primary source of her protection and provision: the government.
For the traditionalist conservative woman, the live-and-let-live social permissiveness of libertarianism represents an attack on traditional gender roles that have historically provided women with provision and protection.
Thus we see leftist feminists and right wing non-feminists (although the ostensible non-feminism of the latter is actually a manifestation of a far older and more deeply rooted feminism) united — though not exactly holding hands — in opposition to a political movement which, according to their worldviews, seeks to strip them of what they believe to be rights and entitlements, but are actually privileges. Liberty means that women would have to earn their own keep and bear their own responsibilities and, while certainly capable of it, they simply are not currently socialized to live that way.
(How’s that for politically incorrect?)
That’s the point I was trying to make. You did a much better job of it.
There’s a lot of different stuff going on here.
A major part of this is that, throughout human history, women have been socialized to expect provision and protection from society in general and from men specifically. With the advent of second wave feminism (that virulent strain of cultural Marxist, gynocentric, misandrous identity politics that defined the women’s movement in the 1960s and held sway for twenty years or so – and still does today in some quarters), the source of this provision and protection was shifted from men to the state and, accordingly, the latter has been heartily embraced by women. Add to this the deeply rooted sense of self-righteous entitlement that comes with being a member of a “victim” class. Thus women were enabled to enjoy provision-by-proxy while being free to demonize and marginalize the true source of their provision. For a woman born and raised in such a climate, libertarianism represents an attack on what she sees as the primary source of her protection and provision: the government.
For the traditionalist conservative woman, the live-and-let-live social permissiveness of libertarianism represents an attack on traditional gender roles that have historically provided women with provision and protection.
Thus we see leftist feminists and right wing non-feminists (although the ostensible non-feminism of the latter is actually a manifestation of a far older and more deeply rooted feminism) united — though not exactly holding hands — in opposition to a political movement which, according to their worldviews, seeks to strip them of what they believe to be rights and entitlements, but are actually privileges. Liberty means that women would have to earn their own keep and bear their own responsibilities and, while certainly capable of it, they simply have not been socialized to live that way.
(How’s that for politically incorrect?)
I disagree Alex. The time when most women didn’t work outside the home in America and were housewives was the same time that the government was much smaller. The difference between a housewife and a welfare recipient is that the former is a voluntary agreement between men and women while the latter is the result of government coercion. There’s nothing in libertarianism that requires that women work outside the home if they are able to find a man willing to support them financially in exchange for raising his kids, cooking meals and keeping the house clean.
right on, julie. that’s part of it anyway. the top three reasons i have include 1: your point that women are typically seem to care more about the judgement of others (my wife spends 10% of her life in front of the mirror despite my endless barrage of flattery), 2: the point of fellow commenter, Brian Crisan, that men typically are better at keeping the conversation cold and objective; getting too emotional has a way of undermining reason, and 3: when first hearing of the idea of libertarianism, the concept seems to many like it’s a “you’re all on your own” scenario where only the strong survive. I believe men are much less likely to shy away from this proposal. The concept of that challenge is a not so secret fantasy of a lot of guys.
Brian Houser may have a point; it would certainly bear looking into. I do know that I’m INTJ and I’ve been Libertarian since the late 1980s, when the movement was only about 10 years old. I learned about Libertarianism in my late 20s, through some books I found in an economic newsletter my father subscribed to at the time.
Ever since reading those books, no appeal to statism has ever made sense to me, and I’m amazed that so many remain infatuated with it. I figure there must be some emotional attachment to the Republican/Democrat political systems, because no one seems to say, “Aha! You know, you’re right,” when I have pointed out repeatedly that because both parties are Keynesian, it therefore follows that all of our economic woes are Keynesian, and yet we expect Keynesians to solve a Keynesian problem with Keynesian solutions. And I’ll tell them that that’s like using gasoline to put out a fire. Outside of politics, everyone would recognize just how ludicrous this is.
However, no one is willing to vote third-party because they’re too afraid of the other party’s candidate. The blunt translation of this is that they’re cowards; they have no courage.
But as for why it’s taking so long for Libertarianism to catch on, I think you have, indeed, struck upon an important point, Julie. Libertarianism may need to go through another iteration, or it may need some other sort of stimulus for it to really catch the wind in its sails, and I suspect that what will do that is either a female Libertarian candidate, or someone, man or woman, who can make these ideas more palatable to women.
When the Libertarian Party started 40 years ago, they were the FIRST, so to speak, to re-introduce these ideas in recent history. The current popularity of the Liberty Movement in your generation strikes me as those were SECOND. I am hoping that it doesn’t take another 40 years until we get to those who are THIRD (I am emphasizing these for a specific reason), but I think those who are THIRD will be the ones to break through. Check out this lecture by Malcolm Gladwell, and you’ll better understand what I’m getting at:
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/10/malcolm-gladwell-asks-is-first-third/
“I have pointed out repeatedly that because both parties are Keynesian, it therefore follows that all of our economic woes are Keynesian, and yet we expect Keynesians to solve a Keynesian problem with Keynesian solutions.”
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the US has consistently applied Keynesian principles, it doesn’t follow that all economic woes of the U.S. are caused by those policies. It could plausibly be that had Keynesian principles not been applied, things would be worse.
Julie:
I think that’s a big part of it. But I think an even bigger part is even more politically incorrect: that with the destruction of the traditional family, women look to government as a replacement husband, and so want bigger government to protect them and bully others.
BTW, I think you should drop the “creepertarian” term. Have you heard the joke: What’s the difference between a creepy way for a man to ask for a date and a romantic way? How good the man looks. The “hitting on” of women is just a result of the gender ratio — a self-perpetuating circle that will continue until there is a “breakout” in bringing women into the movement and it’s no longer a problem.
I am going to go harshly against the grain here and say that my experience with libertarian organizations is that the men in general have a primal admiration for power, no matter it’s source. Because of that they can’t bring themselves to speak too harshly about private prisons (after all there is the word private), Walmart, Pfizer, and Monsanto.
Female Libertarians see this – see that inspite of what they’ve read, the members are willing to turn a blind eye to looting – and walk away disgusted.
At least that was this libertarain/ancap atheist woman’s experience. I would be jazzed to participate in a women’s libertarian group – one that actually supported libertarianism, but I don’t believe such exists.
This libertarian musician enjoyed your article!
I’m not sure this is just an issue with the libertarians. It seems like most of the women holding political office lean more liberal and are Democrats. The House currently has 49 Democrat women and 24 Republican women.The Republicans get blasted all the time on women’s issues for just being men in spite of the fact that they represent thousands or millions of women.
This seems to be inconsistent because most of the women in my life are very conservative. For some reason it seems like liberal women tend to be more active in politics while conservative women are less active.
I’m not sure why this is, and I’m making no assumptions here, but the libertarians seem to attract more conservatives than liberals and more men than women.
This is an interesting post. I think you covered some good points about women and Libertarianism. However, I think you left out the important analysis of the abortion/reproductive “rights” debate. Since Libertarians view everyone as individuals and not members of a group this draws the ire of a large number of women who want to be viewed not as individuals but as a societal group with rights different than everyone else. While many women with Libertarian leanings may not agree with issues like public funding for Planned Parenthood they feel if they dissent from supporting this topic it will cause them to be viewed as not caring about their fellow women and thus will stick to more Liberal views because “the Liberals support Women’s rights” (supposedly). This could also explain why there are fewer Republican women. Like others have said on this feed, they are influenced by social status more so than men.
I’ll go a little more politically incorrect and share my opinion. Libertarianism is very logical and not emotional. In other words, you have to be confident in your own abilities and decisions and not worry about the decisions of others to embrace Libertarianism. This is kind of what you suggest with the premise that women care more about what others think. To expand upon this premise, I believe that women are more likely to want to take care of others than men. This desire makes them less likely to keep out of other people’s business.
Just take a look on how ‘classic liberalism’ evolved and that ‘libertarianism’ is just an umbrella term.
1. ‘Ultra’ libertarianism seems to be what Marx described as ‘primitive communism’. Anything what hasn’t to do with yourself or family is ‘none of your business’ or ‘tribe’ like it was 20.000 years ago.
2. Totalitarian individualism can be called libertarianism, too. Most likely anarchism. When nobody has to say anything to you, even your natural friends like your parents.
Both points are fundamentally against modern culture. If you give a rats ass on the Western world or culture anyway, you are absolutly against conservatism and values in general.
‘Modern’ liberalism asks by contrast the question: How do you secure Western culture and it’s personal liberty and prosperity under the principle of subsidiarity today? So you are critical about the future of conservative values.
-> Most women I know don’t think about complex abstract models and solutions. Even if they study ‘social science’, they always want more security but independent from themselves. They don’t want to watch if the light is red, but more likely to have a regulation that it is never red for them. That is why they search for safety everytime. And that is why most women aren’t for real solutions. Exceptions are just made, if you target a realistic goal by heading in this direction or give arguments, why this will work.
You are right about the fact, that girls look out what give them status.
Both things put together:
If the movement is mostly unspecific about what you want to liberalize (except returning to pre 9/11) or just give any clues that it’s not favoring women in general or keep them thinking most people of the movement are totally ‘green behind the ears’, you won’t get support.
On the more economic part:
If you study business science, most people skip to the absolute basics. Only if you are realy into it, you try to understand the history and many different models. The Freiburg School, Austrian School and later Chicago School are all “Neo-Liberalism” as a successor of classic liberalism. Austrian School coming then into place, where mathematics and ‘Homo oeconomicus’ fail.
-> Most women aren’t theoretical students of economy models. And if so, economic science is not a lifestyle.
I have been a Libertarian for many, many, many years and it has never bothered me if someone thought that to be a little different. If someone asked me why I was a Libertarian I would simply say “Because I believe in freedom, liberty, upholding the original intent of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” There was no other nitche for me other than the Liberty Party. I think that supporting a party that is outside the mainstream is exciting and has forced me to remain more informed than many people I come in contact with. When people tell me they are a member of a certain party, I always ask them why, not in a negative way, but to see if they have any idea why they have aligned themselves with that party. I have yet to get an answer that tells me they even have a remote idea what their party represents. I have always beleived in freedom and that The Constitution/Bill of Rights are the highest laws of our land and that it is my responsibility, as a citizen of this country, to do my best to make sure that they remain just that. I had no idea that the Libertarian Party lacked women. My gut feeling would have been that a lot of women would align with this party because it does not promote or support war. Most moms don’t want to consider the prospect of their sons going off to war. Life without freedom is, at best, a half-life.
Women are more social than men?! Are you kidding? Did you ever live in a college dormitory? Read Mencken? Dip your toes in Paglia?
Men are more obsessive than women–about sports, sex, politics, economics, what-have-you. We like abstractions. Camille Paglia seems to think this has something to do with having an external sex organ. I don’t know. Her guess is as good as mine.
“Concerned about fitting in with their peers”?! Now I’ve heard everything. In the immortal words of Mencken, “Men and women disagree about many things, but on this much at least they agree: they both distrust women.”
Okay would you like to know what I think? I am a 37 year ol mom of four . I homeschool ,I am a Christian and Libertarian. Now guess what happens to woman like me in the Libertarian circles. I end up defending my faith, my God and my liberty. Libertarians claim to be about liberty but honestly the men really suck at it. My kids are better at defending liberty. I came to The whole liberty movement because my kids friended someone on FB by accident. My brother is already in the Constitution Party and he has for years tried to win me over. You see I was a Republican. All my women friends. republicans. Now the friend was Kurt Wallace and He posted a video What If. I watched here I am. So now I have been here for a couple years but sometimes I wonder why. It isn’t the coolness of liberty. My Republican friends are so turned off from your views on abortion, the ridiculous memes that pop up with sexy girls and marijuama. Seriously? Lets think here. If Ron Paul had used Legalizing Marijuana as his main platform how far would he have gotten?(which I am not against for medicine ) My homeschooling children understand all of this . Why can’t you. If I mention God all of a sudden I am hammered for my beliefs. If say Jesus they are like you must be A Republican trying to legislate morality. You are telling us how to live. No wonder no one is listening. You honestly think you will gain women that way? Abortion is a women’s issue and important. Once you have had children you can’t go back to just ignoring it. The Constitution Party has never once bashed me at all, yet you Libertarians every comment I have ever made on any post you pounce. Don’t give me this garbage about making it popular for woman. I honestly do not care what Hollywood is doing. Let their money consume them. Any woman willing to stand up for anything could care less about that. All my homeschooling friends are already spitting in the face of the public school system, you honestly think we want to be popular. As Christians you think we ARE popular. Please. Maybe we could try real liberty and try bringing in people with faith instead of alienating them. Isn’t that what the Libertarians are suppose to be all about. I mean after reading all of Ron Paul’s stuff I assumed the people who believed his ideas were different. If all the Libertarian men want are girlfriends, then try the bar, you post enough stuff about drinking anyway I am sure you can find common ground on that.
Barbara, Seek and you shall find. You do not describe the bulk of the liberty movement, you merely describe the most vocal and obnoxious (and God Bless their rights to be so). There are plenty of us out here who are Christians and know that libertarianism, not unlike other political philosophies have deep roots in Christianity that not even the most militant of atheists in the libertarian movement could severe with all their might. Some of my favorite libertarians happen to be atheists or agnostics, but most of them, with the notable exception of Ayn Rand (who rejected the label but still fit the description), were not only not hostile, but in many ways kindred spirits.
Fighting for liberty is not about pandering to you and your personal preferences. It’s about principles. You say you’re only for legalizing cannabis for medical use so by default that means you’re okay with those using it for pleasure being kidnapped and incarcerated. And so you don’t respect self-ownership, you do want to engage in violence against non-violent people, and you have no place in the liberty movement. So if people like you feel alienated, to me that just indicates that libertarians have been doing a good job.
Pingback: Why are there so few female libertarians? « Gucci Little Piggy
Instead of looking where the women aren’t, let’s look at where they are and why. Most women are liberal, with the democrats. Why? The Democrats PANDER to women, they convince women that they are perpetual victims and the party is going to fight for them. This is where the feminists are. If anyone tries to even deny paying for women’s birth control with taxpayer dollars, the democrats launch this phony “war on women”. That is why most women are democrats. That is where the rewards and spoils are. Fortunately, not all women (those like Julie) are not that gullible. If we want more in the libertarian party we are going to have to expose this, though I am skeptical about how much good it will do. There are rewards to being libertarian even though we don’t pander and placate, and we need to make these clear and share them, but again these currently will not outnumber the many spoils and undeserved rewards that the democrats use to get votes. I think the only hope is to wait until the country finally has to reign in its spending and the democrats are no longer able to get funding for the ridiculous and biased programs they use to pander to women (the VAWA, NOW, affirmative action) and women no longer see overwhelming benefit to staying in that party.
.Barbara Barker said
>Libertarians claim to be about liberty but honestly the men really suck at it.
I am an atheist Mom and I approve this message.
Bashing men is so trendy and cool
I know I can count on you to leave that same message for every commenter who’s response to “Why is our club missing a demographic that comprises 50% of the population” is “Thems is flawed.”
Keep speaking the truth Julie
it is truely sad, because not only is it hard to find a woman who actually likes politics and philosophy, it is infinately harder to find a woman who is a devout libertarian, hell even somone who was informed enough to talk over dinner is damn near impossible to find. it seems most of us are doomed to be alone or settle for someone who you either disagree with on your core belief system or who is just ignorant. very sad. if i could find one she would have to be the future mrs stahl!
Women tend to be Democrats because they appreciate the money and pandering that Democrats throw their way. Women also know libertarianism = no money and pandering. Women will go back to traditionalism, where they are still cared for, before they go for libertarianism where they have to take responsibility for themselves.
Sorry.
If women don’t care about individuality and care more about other people’s views of them them then they are clearly not libertarian material; libertarianism is about increasing individuality as opposed to increasing the power of a collective e.g. a government. And you know what the libertarian movement is better off without them, if that’s the case; because if they are so mindless and sheep-like that they will want to fit more than forming their own beliefs based on merit and will give in to social pressure so easily, then they are retards that will drag down the liberty movement down.
Giving up freedom to fit in is shameful!