So my recent YouTube video titled “Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians” has created quite the stir online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk
My main point was that women tend (key word) to be more socially conscious than men. We tend to be more concerned with being socially accepted and fitting in with our peers. From my experience as a woman, there is a lot of societal pressure on women to conform to what is considered “normal” by popular culture standards. That may not be the most pleasant thing to hear (to some people) but it is the truth the way I see it.
The pressure exists for men too, but I believe it’s not nearly as much.
Men generally care less about fitting in, there probably isn’t as much pressure to conform, and their male peers likely don’t judge them as harshly for being “different.” They tend be less social and don’t care if their interests seem nerdy to others– video games, anime, Star Wars, etc. There are far more male atheists, which is typically seen as an alternative viewpoint.
Libertarianism is not widely accepted in mainstream society. Not because our ideas aren’t right (contrary to some people’s view, I believe our philosophy has little to do with the lack of libertarian women), but because most people have no idea what a libertarian is– therefore, it’s “weird and strange.” It’s a funny sounding word that a lot of people have never heard of.
Women that express different viewpoints are more likely to be ostracized by their peer group. I probably care less about fitting in than most women, but I have been excluded for being different. Even over silly stuff like my hair wasn’t straight like the other girls.
As my Facebook friend wrote, “To all the people hating on Julie Borowski. You might not agree with her. You might not understand what she’s talking about. But as a former sorority girl who was active in my campus libertarians club, I can tell you that I did not tell a single of my sisters about my political activism – because I didn’t want to be alienated.”
I can definitely relate to this. I found out about Ron Paul at the end of my freshman year in college and I remember women started looking down upon me and thinking I was strange for my Ron Paul “obsession” — as they called it. When I told them I was thinking of starting a libertarian club, they gave me a weird look and told me to stop being a “nerd.” I became an outcast to my female peers because of my political views.
But it was “cool” to be a liberal activist. I remember my friends doing activism for Darfur.
The video is simplistic and generalizes because it is a 2 minute YouTube video.
I was attempting to show that some women believe that being liberal is “normal” due to popular culture. Liberalism is everywhere in popular culture. Popular women’s magazines promote casual sex which I disagree with– but my views on casual sex have nothing to do with my libertarianism. It was merely a point to show that popular culture is well, liberal. Abortion is also a liberal viewpoint that is promoted by pop culture. Though some libertarians are pro choice.
I then poked fun at current pop culture that is targeted at women. It has always been funny to me how popular culture women’s magazines have really expensive products in them and then support taxpayers funding birth control. If you can afford $200 lipstick, you should be able to afford birth control. Of course, if you watch my other videos you’ll know that I like my videos to be more on the fun side.
Not all women are the same and we do not all fit into gender stereotypes. Clearly. Most libertarian women that I have met have been confident and care far less than the average person about what other people think about them. To proudly and publicly hold a belief that is outside the mainstream– you have to be a certain type of person.
As my Facebook friend continues to say: “Just because the situation isn’t the best doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be acknowledged and that she doesn’t have a point. Freedom should be popular. Everyone is welcome to these views. — The problem is that these views are not necessarily welcome to everyone else.”
I do not think women are “stupid” or incapable of thinking on their own. I just realize that there are a lot of societal pressures on women to act and believe a certain way. There are likely numerous reasons why there are far more males than females in the libertarian/liberty movement but this point should be made: men are more likely to embrace views outside the mainstream.
I want more men AND women in the libertarian movement. That’s why I want to make it a part of popular culture.
julieborowski.wordpress.com 
Don’t feel you have to explain a think Julie. The points you make are realistic and on the money. I think all Libertarians get pressure to conform regardless of gender but you definately see it more when it comes to women. It’s a valid observation.
The video was very clear (and very good!). The people you have to explain it to are those who look to split ideological hairs and pick a fight. The hard politicos of lefty libertarianism (more and more an oxymoron) and femagoguery (not feminist individualism) lurk around the fringes of a now very vibrant movement, seeking to feed off the energy and innovations of people like yourself, in order to claim their 15 seconds of internet fame. They are stuck in the mire of 60’s radicalism and 80’s feminism, the two most humorless (and statist) movements of recent memory. Have some pity: it sucks to be them.
🙂 Really enjoying your thoughts on this. Seems sensible to me.
It blows my mind that some people would even have trouble understanding your point. I am a 17 year old libertarian woman, I also for the most part don’t care about what others think about me. In fact I have at times expressed my so called libertarian “radical views” so that a select few people would steer clear of me.
Although I think it would be nice to have more liberty minded individuals in the popular social circles, I doubt it would make much difference. I think with a few people my age the celebrities they look up to does influence their political ASSUMPTIONS. I say assumptions because the vast majority of people my age or any age seem to have little to no actual understanding of politics. Far too many people simply hear the rhetoric but fail to listen through the B.S. and to the truth. I simply can’t imagine that an influx of liberty minded people into these social groups would make a difference. Even if the people began to regurgitate the libertarian talking points, their actual understanding of the theories would be next to zero and be easily defeated by peer pressure and the education system.
I think we would spread the message of liberty more by libertarian minded people becoming educators. If we can teach young people what REAL freedom and liberty is, what REAL self-responsibility is, along with the TRUE free-market principals from people like Milton Freedman and Murray Rothbard we could turn the country around. After a few generations of MEANINGFUL and GENUINE education the public school system will collapse in on it’s self and be replaced primarily with private schools and home schooling because people will begin to more easily see the fallacy and corrupt ability of the public school system.
Either way I don’t want to promote an ideology with a celebrity. To me is seems shallow. However I can see your point being that the liberal party has seemingly so effectively used it to boaster their cause. I still believe REAL knowledge will give the people the ability to see through the propaganda regardless of its source. Do we want to promote libertarianism through hero worship or education?
By the way, I LMAO when your were using your fancy makeup.
Pingback: No girls allowed? « Bonnie Kristian
I I think it is rather petty for someone to get all ticked off at Julie as I would think that they know if they pay attentions to her posts, that she woould have havd good intentions in mind when making the video. Jennifer Gibbons-Nie.
oops on my typos, can’t delete it now 🙂 but you get the picture! Jen.
Freedom in the abstract is popular. But freedom in the particular is not. People tuned into ideas, first principles, philosophy (a.k.a. nerds) tend to be open to libertarianism, but everybody else can’t quite get around to preferring abstract ideas to government goodies. You got all those red-state yokels beploring “big gummint” while at the same time berating their congressmen for not bringing home the bacon (Farm Bill.) “Get your government hands off my Medicare” is a joke that, sadly, reflects the cognitive dissonance of the American people.
So, no, libertarianism will always be a niche thing, because being intellectually curious and thoughtful is niche, so the only way to get a libertarian society is to lock it into the Constitution. Democracy will always, always, kill freedom without restraint in the Constitution, which has been vaporized by decades of liberal jurisprudence. Face it, the future of the U.S.A. is western Europe. We need to start a new country.
It’s really sad that you have to explain your video like this, but I hope it clears up some confusion. I’ve got mad respect for you, Julie.
Julie, did you add the pop-up text in the beginning of the video, because of the pushback? I think you should take it out. It distracts from your opening; people are reading it instead of listening to you. If people want to flip out over your 2 minute video, you putting up a disclaimer isn’t going to win them over.
I didn’t realize that it was so distracting. I’ll just add it to the video description then. Thanks.
I think you just hit a nerve with a few feminists that think they are libertarians, but are actually not. Ideas need to be evaluated on their own and not tied to a social group. Newton was a misogynist, but that doesn’t mean women shouldn’t believe in ‘Calculus’ or “Newton’s laws of motion”. The idea, the philosophy, is independent of who else might also believe it.
That said, belief in unpopular thinking is for those unafraid to be isolated. Testosterone makes men take bigger risks. Unpopular ideas are risky. Men are therefore more likely to believe in unpopular ideas (both valid and kooky). There are more men libertarians because there are also more men conspiracy theorists. Men are more likely to embrace fringe ideas.
The very idea that there might be actual biological differences between men and women is insulting and infuriating to feminists. They demand that all differences are arbitrary and social in cause – no matter how much the evidence (and simple observation of young children) shows this not to be the case.
Very well stated. Keep fighting the good fight!
I agree most of all in you conclusion.
What we need is more people like Penn and Teller, people you can say “Wow! those guys are awesome! I wanna be like them!” and then when they tell you “well, I am a libertarian” you go “really? I’ll check that out then”.
I think that what this means for libertarians, now a days in a world where very few countries have a libertarian political force worthy of note, is that the best way we can promote libertarianism is by each of us being a model of a person, by whatever mean preffered. Become the most recognized singer, scientist, philantropist, entrepreneur, actor or hooker you can posibly be in the most positive way you can and you will be helping the cause a lot.
Especially hookers. They MUST be libertarians.
That’s true. Women Libertarians are rare. It never occurred to me why.
I certainly agree that liberty has to become more part of the culture, and recognize that leftists are particularly insular and intolerant of opposing views. The disparity between male and female libertarians seems quite real. Is it because, as you say, of a different or higher social pressure on women? Perhaps. It’s good that you’re raising the question. I suspect that more women just need to see other women being libertarian. But I don’t know. The fact that you’ve stirred up a buzz is encouraging.
Also, women tend to end up in more caring and nurturing paths of life; education/special education, social work, nursing etc., which all happened to have strong ties with government money. I think it is difficult to conclude wether you are right or wrong about social pressure being more significant to women’s stance on libertarianism than men’s, but I do think social pressure is overall a small factor in comparison to the career or life paths that women choose. It is a natural first(emphasis on first) instinct to assume that if the government isn’t paying for healthcare, education, social welfare, like it does now, that there won’t be much of any of those things. So if you are a compassionate woman(or man), of course you will advocate for the political system that you feel 1) will employ you and 2) nurtures society. Unfortunately, this first instinct often leads to liberalism. I think you critique of consumerism culture is warranted, but I think men and women both fall prey to it equally (more or less). Yes! Let’s make libertarianism hip, but for the men just as much as the women. Keep the videos coming, I always enjoy them.
It sounds like libertarian women need a “Torches of Freedom” moment, just to make the libertarian viewpoint more palatable.
To all the haters bashing Julie’s suggestions, I don’t think suggesting libertarian men are misogynistic jerks is any less sexist then you say Julie’s argument that women tend to be more socially conscientious is. In fact, it is far less so, since plenty of psychological studies back her up. The critics are offering no alternative credible explanation at the lack of female membership in libertarian circles, just hating on Julie for pointing out an obvious influence.
Haters gone’ hate. Keep spreading the word! I too get harassed by my family and peers over my Ron Paul “Obsession”. But you know what, they all know his name now, and what he stands for. So as far as I’m concerned, my mission was completely successful. I helped spread the Liberty Movement.. and now I get to sit and watch people waking up all around me. Truly opening their eyes, to where this country (and world) is heading. But more importantly, how each one of us will be impacted.
Keep rockin’ it girl! Enjoyed it. You’re right in your article. I’ve never “fit” in with other women either and always made my own trails. In fact, all the Libertarian women I know are that way. Always enjoy your videos!
I don’t know where you get your information from, or if it is just an assumption about women that came from your own background. It would be an interesting investigation, but maybe it is a presumption on my part that you have not studied libertarianism and women.
I was delightfully surprised when I discovered that my best friend growing up was a libertarian! She introduced me to another libertarian friend of hers….but the thing that surprised me most was how much she had become interested in similar things, except for “faith” and the right to choose abortion….because she is adopted, she has come to understand her faith in those terms and it affects her feelings/position on abortion, I believe. ….
I do not have any data supporting the hypothesis, only my intuition,but I think that personality, intelligence and interests play a big part in how we process and come to terms with our political persuasions. Others might be more influenced by their families, friend’s or social group’s political persuasions.
Completely agree. As a married man my observations are the same.
So, I watched your video with my 12 and 16 year old sons. They totally got it. People who u deist and libertarianism get you. No explanation needed. Job well done 🙂
Wow…major typo there. Mean to say, “people who understand libertarianism get you.” Oops 😉
Do not worry for a second about the “left-libertarians” who are attacking you. There are approximately 50 of them, they spend their time debating whether we should use this word rather than that word, lecturing libertarians for not being leftist enough, and trying to make libertarianism seem as freakish and anti-bourgeois as possible — and then they criticize everyone else for why more people aren’t libertarians. Ever heard the expression “Physician, heal thyself”?
(One caveat: I do in fact like some of these people, since some of them aren’t actually humorless automatons.)
its unfortunate. biology dictates many things in human society that we are not aware of, but it is not a representation of absolutes, its only a matter of percentages, and its not like discipline or personal philosophy cant overcome it. to say “many women choose to fit it” is not a statement that all women are predestined to attempt to fit in, just that biological imperatives might give a little more of a push in that direction, not that they have to necessarily be listened to. some of it might also be culturally driven, but culture has its birthplace in nature as well, culture has a tendency to over enforce nature to its unnecessary extreme. just my thoughts, and yeah i happen to be a dude, just thought id add for the hell of it. lol. i really enjoy your vids, big fan. -killgazmotron
“Some” libertarians are pro-choice? There are some exceptions like Ron Paul, but not only the Libertarian Party is pro-choice, practically the whole movement is and always was…
You need to get out more. Libertarians probably reflect the same pro-life/ pro-“choice” split as the general population, about 50-50. Hell, even at cosmotarian central reason H&R the comments split about 50-50.
You say: “Men generally care less about fitting in, there probably isn’t as much pressure to conform, and their male peers likely don’t judge them as harshly for being ‘different.’” Really? I would bet the pressure to conform with stereotypes of masculinity, starting in the middle school boys locker room, is far more intense; it continues through college and beyond. Do girls regularly get beat up for not being girly enough?
Julie, I’m not hating on you but, as a female Libertarian, I found the video very, very hard to watch. I think the legitimate points you did make (I do agree with you re: women who are different being more readily ostracised and you’re right about it taking a special type of person to openly admit holding views that aren’t mainstream) were made poorly. I know you’ve admitted that the video is a simplification but, perhaps, this is an issue that shouldn’t be simplified. It is, in its nature, complex. I also found the video incredibly judgemental. If your views on casual sex are unrelated to libertarianism then you should have left them out of a discussion about libertarianism. That wasn’t a good tactic in this regard. It was a distraction away from the main thrust of the argument ergo it just came across as slut-shaming. I also felt you were judging women who indulge in popular culture. Even if you think popular culture is plebian – it is “popular” culture because people enjoy it. Whilst I agree that ultimately our goal should be to make libertarianism popular culture the worst possible way to do that it is to say – everything that you currently enjoy is wrong/stupid/too Liberal, enjoy this instead! Your point about the lipstick vs. birth control was poorly made, too. It’s not a case of women not being able to afford birth control. It’s that they see birth control as a ‘right.’ There’s a different thought process going on there. Ultimately, I think that if Libertarianism isn’t being seen as a viable set of political beliefs by great swathes of society we need to take some responsibility for that. I have worked in the PR departments of several Libertarian organisations both here in the UK and in Washington, DC and I can tell you – we are some of the worst communicators in politics, in the media, in popular culture… We are not doing well on that front. We really need to understand that we think and feel differently from other women and adapt our message to them.
Okay, you’re not hating on her, but you are using the same tired arguments that the BHLers use when they do. There is no blueprint for communicating libertarian ideas. Her method is smart, funny, and appeals to people who should be libertarian, but aren’t.
You read too much into what she said. Why should she leave out her views on casual sex? They’re her views and its her video! And her point about birth control was spot on. BTW — it’s because some women “can’t afford birth control” and birth control is “essential” for reproductive freedom that feminists insist that it is a right.
Libertarians (like the ones criticizing Julie) are the “worst communicators” because they do stupid shit like put legalizing heroin at the top of their policy proposals, or slam Israel for defending herself, or adopt conspiracy theories that would make Oliver Stone blush. You CANNOT compare Julie’s fresh approach to communication failures of the past.
You know what screws libertarianism? Dour, hippy-looking comrades who try to merge it with social justice or property expropriation and then throw a hissy fit when someone doesn’t follow their script. Slut-shaming? Seriously?
I, respectfully, disagree. I found her method a little insulting. Certainly not smart and funny.
Immorality is a judgement. Some people think taking drugs are immoral but respect the right of adults to take them in private because they consent to taking them and do not harm anyone else. Likewise casual sex does not violate the harm principle even if Julie disapproves of it. It distracted from the point.
This approach may be fresh but the clip of her with the make all over her face made her look ridiculous. All I was thinking whilst watching it was – if this is what a Libertarian is then I don’t want to be one.
Also, I genuinely wasn’t hating on her. I was actually trying to offer some constructive criticism as to how she could make her arguments more effective. BHL offered a robust that should be taken seriously even if you choose to dismiss it.
You’re right, I cannot compare Julie’s approach to communication failures of the past. It’s a fresh new type of communication failure. Most of the talk about this video has been about fashion magazines, lipstick and casual sex, not about how we can let more women know about our great ideas.
I think you made some excellent points, and I agree that she probably should have either fully explained her views on casual sex or left it out completely. Just mentioning it once without an explanation isn’t great. But I also disagree when you accuse her of being judgemental and slut shaming. She mentioned that she thought casual sex was immoral. So people should not mention if they think something is immoral? Mentioning something is immoral is judgemental? We all talk about morality all the time, that we think certain actions or behaviors are moral and others are immoral. But it seems to me that a lot of people try to suppress certain viewpoints they don’t agree with by telling people if you say something is immoral, you are judgemental or shaming people.
Immorality is a judgement. Some people think taking drugs are immoral but respect the right of adults to take them in private because they consent to taking them and do not harm anyone else. Likewise casual sex does not violate the harm principle even if Julie disapproves of it. Even if Julie doesn’t indulge in casual sex herself she did not offer a comment of the consensual casual of others. Does she think all casual sex is bad? I can’t tell from the video. What if the consensual sex of others doesn’t violate the harm principle? Does she still disapprove? She came across as judgemental rather than principled. It was a poorly made point.
You must have been watching a different video. In the one I saw, Julie did not say casual sex was immoral. She said that it is not empowering to women. How is that a morally “judgemental”?
The funny, thing, Julie, is that the libertarian viewpoint is the only truly universally accepting viewpoint and if fully understood by the majority would instantly become the predominant political position for its accurate understanding of human action.
So the irony is that one becomes an outcast precisely for holding the most tolerant political position possible – simply that anyone should be allowed to pursue whatever activities they want as long as they do no harm. It can be maddening, really.
“the libertarian viewpoint is the only truly universally accepting viewpoint and if fully understood by the majority…” if only I had a dime for each time this has been stated. Do you have some evidence that people don’t fully understand libertarianism as opposed to simply disagreeing with it?
It’s not as if libertarianism was launched last week. I’m sure people reject the philosophy for a variety of reasons and not simply because they don’t get it.
I totally agree with your point, Julie, but I do believe it was not well made. Go ahead and re-do the video so that nobody is confused about “I just realize that there are a lot of societal pressures on women to act and believe a certain way.” Anybody with something worth saying is going to say it badly sometimes.
This blog was meant to clear up any misconceptions people had about the video.
Or she could simply say that the phrase “I just realize that there are a lot of societal pressures on women to act and believe a certain way” means that there are a lot of societal pressures on women to act and believe a certain way. Yeesh.
Some kind of citation or numerical support is needed to justify the claims you make. The majority of criticism seems centered around this issue, so why not share the information that lead you to your beliefs with the rest of us? Making sweeping claims about gender differences without strong factual support is unhelpful.
She’s giving her opinion based on her observations. There’s no citation or ‘numerical support’ which would prove it one way or the other. if you disagree, then put forward your counter-argument.
Yes, Julie, give us some citations or numerical support because you are the only person in the entire libertarian movement who is not allowed to have an opinion based on observations about society and how biology and popular culture act upon women’s choices. If you could produce quotations from Women’s Studies journals, or perhaps something from Mother Jones magazine, that might satisfy your critics.
And don’t even think about asserting that men are influenced by testosterone without something from the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The two biggest (internal) threats to the libertarian movement are the leftists and the anti-semites (both small but vocal gangs). The anti-semites finally learned to STFU after being shouted down by sane libertarians. Will the lefties ever learn to tone down the sniping?
Let me start by saying I am a fan. Being a Libertarian since the discovery of Dr. Ron Paul in 2007, I agree with and enjoy nearly everything you say in your videos and look forward to new ones with great anticipation.
Having lived more than twice as many years as you have, I have learned a thing or two. I have shed a bit of my ideology and stereotypes for more realistic views and…
“If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”. The Libertarian Party may never gain the popularity you hope. Dr. Paul knows this and that’s why he ran under the Republican ticket and as a political strategy, is Why Rand endorsed that worthless Romney. I am not suggesting abandoning the party, just understand there will be some of us who will be attempting to change the Republican party to a more liberty mindset which brings me to female Libertarians;
My political views are 100% Liberty but I find NOTHING in common with those in the group I support. I have never had a problem being different or outspoken or even outcast but I actually am one of the women who LIKES expensive clothes and make-up and personally I think women do put too much emphasis on sex and if they could view it more the way men do, it would be more empowering to them and their romantic relationships. I am not your typical tree hugging, birkenstock wearing, shove my ideas down your throat libertarian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I have been called a Hippie by my ultra conservative, establishment friends and worse by my brainwashed Obama supporting friends.
I think there are fewer women here because of two things you touched on. Insecurity of being different and having to stick to the religious right.
Thanks Julie. Keep it up!
In my personal life I’ve dated a number of women and have had a good level of success with getting them interested in libertarian ideas. In my experience, the key to success was framing libertarian ideas within the context of feminism. Most women don’t spend their day to day lives thinking about our country’s founders, The Constitution, economic theory, private property rights, individualism, and/or the role of government in general. Some of them may think about civil liberties issues; but it’s usually civil liberties issues that relate directly to women. Of course I’m generalizing here, and I’m not saying that women only care about themselves. I’m simply saying that women are most likely to understand and RELATE to libertarian ideas when promoted and explained from a feminist point of view.
Individualist Feminist, Wendy McElroy, is a really good intellectual who promotes libertarian ideas within the feminist movement. Her personal website is: http://www.wendymcelroy.com . Her organizational website is: http://www.ifeminists.com/ .
I have shared one of her books, “Freedom, Feminism, and The State” with many women. All of them found the book very intriguing. And the book has seemed to act as a jump off point to other libertarian books. Before long, they became libertarians on their own.
Here’s a link to the book: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.7
As a man, I found political conversations with women more effective when I don’t try to preach to women and tell them how to think and how to feel; I found that women completely shutout men when they do that. I studied a lot of philosophy in college and learned a lot from the philosopher Socrates. Socrates, who founded the Socratic Method, would always answer a question with a question. He did that because he understood that it was more important to help people understand HOW to think about things rather than tell them WHAT to think.
I’ve used Wendy McElroy’s book as an “icebreaker” to talk about libertarian ideas within feminism and how it relates to intimate relationships. I’d ask women to share their thoughts about the book and then we’d have discussions and civil debates about it. Overtime, the ongoing conversations would build beyond feminism and into libertarian ideas in general in all areas of society and politics.
Great stuff Julie!
There must be a change of thinking among women to attract them to the Libertarian movement. It requires women to put aside so much of what they were taught and how they were raised. The vast majority of women call themselves Democrats. Big government does the job of protecting the people who need protection. So no matter what a libertarian says taking care of oneself, it is very difficult for most women to look past these beliefs.
One must recognize the difference between men and women in terms of behavior and psychological make-up. Women’s behavior is overwhelmingly governed by feelings, and women want to share feelings and emotions. Men operate best while maintaining a certain level of detachment, and analyze problems based on rules, on thoughts as opposed to feelings. Libertarians must recognize roles to fit women into the movement to increase their membership.
Adding more women into the Libertarian movement would be of great help for they are the most passionate of people when it comes to fighting for a cause, their beliefs and values.
Women are natural socialists. They want everyone to share and everyone to get along. They are nurturers, and they expect the “haves” to take care of the “have-nots,” the strong to take care of the weak, and the brave to protect the others. They want everyone to like them and they want everyone to like each other.
Becoming a libertarian requires women to put aside so much of what we were taught, how we were raised, and what their basic instincts are. The vast majority of women call themselves Democrats, because as any libertarian will tell you, the Democratic Party is the Nanny Party. Welfare takes care of the poor, Social Security takes care of the elderly, and millions of laws and regulations take care of many people. Big government does the job of protecting the people who need protection, and Democrats have historically taken care of big government. So no matter what a libertarian says about the free market, about man taking care of himself, about what that big government has done to our liberties, it is very difficult for most women to look past their upbringing and beliefs especially the need for a Nanny.
To address this, the libertarian movement must realize that the most obvious problem is that women are humans first, and it must always realize that it could use more humans. It should have a strong grassroots movement for change to occur, and while the numbers of libertarians are growing (especially among the youth), it would like to continually bring more people into the fold. So it’s a numbers problem with the gender not being the issue especially when it identifies roles that women could do for the movement like increasing their ranks and major roles and providing support to male Libertarians in any way they can.
Finally, using women for communication to promote Libertarianism like Julie is a major way to increase the number of people joining the movement.
Julie clearly explained that women have to undergo change and pressure from society to get involved in the Libertarian movement. Too bad that many people who viewed the video failed to understand this.
Julie,
I appreciated your video. The critique from BHL is just the normal group of left-libertarians being shocked and offended that other people might not be leftist. Your critique of the unhealthy hypersexualization and infantilization of women in pop culture is spot on.
I can’t help but be amused that so many of the left libertarians attacking Ms. Borowski are pumping their fists about their status as feminists yet taking a much less credibly feminist stance than she is. If I were a feminist (I’m not; I’m an individualist), I’d note that of course women have a greater amount of pressure to conform, to fit in. Historically, men were judged by their ability to achieve success. Women were judged by their ability to attract and retain successful men. For a man aiming to achieve success, not fitting in or being different isn’t necessarily a liability and can well be a positive asset. For a woman seeking to attract and retain successful men, it was an outright liability. The women’s magazines institutionalize this phenomenon. You should buy our overpriced lipstick and eyeliner because it will make you more likely to land “Mr. Right”. You should put out for anyone interested because it will give you a lot more options for “Mr. Right” to choose from. You should support abortion because a kid makes you a lot less attractive an option. You should adopt liberal statism because “Mr. Right” wants a soft and fuzzy wife.
Got here from the Bob Murphy link. Good fun video, good sense of humour.
As to the issue itself, let me first say I find phrasing this question as “why aren’t there more libertarian women” awkward (but in a humorous way). It makes it sound like we’re some self-contained tribe and so a “shortage” of women is a big problem. I guess we’re just going to have to do like the Romans and charm (not abduct!) some Sabine (ie Communist) women?
Anyway I think women generally don’t go for radical (ie meaningful) politics as a matter of course. It has little to do with libertarianism per se. Do you think there were hordes of women with Mao Tse Tung on the Long March? Nope.
And the same is really true of men as well, it’s just that if 70% of men aren’t ever going to be radicals and 98% of women won’t be either, that’s not a big difference between the sexes, really (they’re both overwhelmingly conservative). But it still leaves women outnumbered in the radical ranks 15-1.
The only sort of political outfits which have an apparent relative abundance of women are the likes of PETA and Greenpeace (and it’s questionable how radical these are), but I suspect that’s actually because no self-respecting macho-man is ever going to hook up with such a softly bunch. So actually it isn’t they have an abundance of women, but rather a shortage of men.
I TOTALLY agree with everything you said in the video Julie. You don’t have to explain yourself. Women have no sense of personal responsibility. Is it any surprise that the explosion in the growth of government happened when women were given the right to vote?
Also, as a manager, i will NEVER promote another woman at work. They spend more time yapping about useless pop culture, talking about each other behind each other’s backs, creating conflicts etc. more than doing actual work. And they wonder why they don’t get ‘paid as much as men’. UGH.
Loved the video, but actually, Julie, it doesn’t matter if you’re male, female, liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Deep down, we’re all just monkeys in shoes, as you can see with yourself getting ‘beat up’ by some. I was especially intrigued by the libertarian commenting that “I don’t know where you get your information from, ….., but maybe it is a presumption on my part that you have not studied libertarianism and women” as if lack of indoctrination into the teachings of others on how they view the way things are and ought to be somehow devalue the concepts and opinions you may have formed without it because you are not pure, ideologistically (I just made that word up) speaking. How many libertarians just sit in their own circles debating with each other that which is pure or not instead of going out into the world and drinking a few beers with liberals or conservatives and asking “on what do you base that position”?
Bah. You don’t need to apologize or explain yourself to the naysayers and critics. Just keep going for the stepladder!!!
The controversy underlines how easy it is to push people’s buttons. The basic issue Julie raised is important, interesting and difficult – why so many white males? Because obviously, gender is not the only demographic where libertertarians are skewed. We’re totally skewed!
Julie typically satirizes ideas she disagrees with, and rants a bit. This red meat looks delicious to us old libertarians hands, and might inspire an epiphany for a few newbies. So as “inreach” I think it works, but as outreach it misses the target.
In this case, I think Julie switched to prescription before she finished her diagnosis. She raised an issue I care about, but did not persuade me that she understood the causes and cures. When the video ended, I did not feel energized to help with a solution or pursue further investigation. (On the other hand, it did make me stop and think, and inspired me to make this comment.) And although I don’t agree with the bleeding heart libertarians who got bent out of shape, I can understand their perspective. I’m not sure what motivated Julie to make the video, what she hoped to accomplish. I guess I’m asking her to aim higher, because I believe she has a lot of spark and so could accomplish more than this if she put her mind to it.
I want more outreach. If we want to increase the size and demographic diversity of the libertarian movement, we need to persuade people better. Rather than criticizing, we need to provide tempting alternatives. This has led me to want to learn more about persuasion, motivation, and communication. I invite you to join me.
Thank you, Julie, for the latest video. Please do not worry about the critics too much. A lot of “left-libertarians” seem to lack common sense. Egalitarianism for them, unlike Murray Rothbard, is not a “revolt against nature.”
***
For those of you, for whatever reason, think there are no practical differences (or resulting practical implications) between men and women, take a look at _Taking Sex Differences Seriously_ by Steven E. Rhoads. It’s a good first source to start with.
I think the video makes a perfectly valid and likely true point.
However, this blog post still conflates political liberalism with personal liberalism. I think that’s dangerous for a few reasons. First, it just clearly misses the point–for example, since it keeps being mentioned, casual sex is something no libertarian should have a political problem with, regardless of your personal value system. Second, politically savvy libertarianism–which you seem to advocate in your voting video–is most clearly challenged by “conservative” libertarians/tea party movement/fox news/etc. When people who are otherwise pro-liberty see a bunch of “pro-liberty” people harping on casual sex, abortion (e.g. neoconservative/Christian values), etc. I think it turns them off of the movement as a whole.
Thanks for contributing to the visibility of Libertarianism, it is nice to have female role models in the movement.
Reblogged this on Israel Cisternas and commented:
From a fellow liberterian
There are not more female libertarians because of “libertarians” like you. What you are espousing is NOT libertarian. It is Social Conservatism. There is nothing inherently incongruous between libertarianism and feminism. Nor are liberalism and libertarianism mutually exclusive philosophies. I have been a registered libertarian for twenty years. I am also a feminist. I am also pro-choice. Libertarianism is a pretty big tent, and there are plenty female libertarians, just not by your narrow definition.
How is casual sex, lipstick, or mascara (or even caring about what other people think about you) anti-liberty? I understand she was making a point about hypocrisy (expensive lipstick versus free birth control) but that is not a libertarian point at all.
Men don’t want to fit in? You’re kidding. You know nothing about men. A straight man’s existance is mostly being perceived as straight. Every decision like which urinal we use determines if we are perceived as gay or straight. Men just don’t talk about how we spend our entire day thinking about fitting in, but we do it.
Hmm. I don’t understand how a libertarian can have any complaints about glossy women’s magazines. Those magazines aren’t disseminating liberal ideas; they are just publishing anything and everything that make people buy the magazine, whether it’s fashion or sex advice. And the sex tips and advice columns are just there to bring readers to advertisements from manufacturers. These magazines are just a perfect expression of what freedom means within capitalism.
If you want to make a critique of the false values pushed by such magazines, you will have to shift pretty quickly over to a more left-oriented position. Because these values (success and value for a woman means being sexy, bedding and/or keeping a man, wearing the latest fashions) are countered only by a philosophy that recognizes there are other values that the market tends to erode or weaken.
If someone can correct me, that’s great. But to this left-leaning woman, it’s quite bizarre to hear a self-identified libertarian complaining about the market-based logic embedded in fashion magazines. (By the way, check out magazine’s like Men’s Health before you assert that it’s women alone who are narcissistic and obsessed with looks and consumer products. If this susceptibility were biological, as some here are claiming, why is the male consumer sector expanding every year?)
thank you.
-a Libertarian Woman
People who disagree with your political message have been rewarded again and again for calling misogyny on their enemies. That’s what they’re doing to you. It’s a conversation ender, which is why they like to use it. There’s no need to argue politics and policy when the debate is easily ended by saying, “She hates women!” Your point is valid and the attention has been good for you. Keep making your videos. You are now officially a celebrity in the political blogosphere! One more good controversy and you’ll be invited to be a talking head on cable news.
Anyone baffled about the lack of interest among women in liberterian ideas can solve that mystery in about five minutes. Go the the online version of Reason Magazine and read comments. Any comments on practically any subject. As far as I can figure, 99% of the online readership for Reason consists of politically aware but socially challenged 16 year old boys. No matter what the topic under discussion, the distance from “When we compare consequentialist libertarianism and natural rights libertarianism…” to “Yeah and last week I %$#ed your sister’s ^!@&$” is about five comments.
Assuming current liberterian stars are merely older and slightly smoother versions of these little punks — well, thanks but no thanks.
Completely agree, I was so disappointed by the level of discourse at Reason. I’m a democrat but elements of libertarianism appeal to me and I wanted get involved in some debate to inform my opinions. Imagine my surprise when I waded into the comments sections and found immature frat boys who think they are WAY smarter then reality attests. The level of obnoxious arrogance was astounding and they clearly loved wallowing in it. I’ll read the articles occasionally now but mostly just stay away.
As a non-libertarian who’s interested in your video, can you explain why you spend so much of the video critiquing modern sexual morality? My admittedly crude understanding of libertarianism is that it’s all about personal liberty. Do you really feel that traditional sexual morality is a key part of libertarianism? And if so, does this apply equally to men and women?
If you are not interested in conforming, then why are you on Facebook?
Frostburg State University, represent!
Good job, Julie! Way to make the alma mater proud!
curly hair > straight hair > no hair
I came here to leave a comment after viewing your video, because it had to be one of the most ignorant things I had ever seen. I had never heard of you before I saw this video, and having many Libertarian ideas myself, I thought maybe you might have some insight. Instead there was a 3 minute video of you acting like an idiot while complaining that magazines like Cosmo and Vogue somehow sprout liberal ideology (as if it were Liberals and not Social Conservatives who were saying women should stay home and tend to the family unit). You then complain about abortions and female sexuality and consumerism in general. Pardon me, but should those women not have the Liberty to control their bodies under Libertarian thought? Whether their wallet, their uterus, or their bed partner, we now have a change from a male patriarchal society telling young women what to do now instead a ditzy “Libertarian” who is really just pissed off at Cosmo and Vogue telling young women what to do. You then complain about Liberals and their confounded social media. Well George Soros didnt get people interested in Darfur, it was a bunch of dumb college kids. Instead for ideas and vision, Libertarians bring out Ron Paul and the Gold Standard. Your video is the equivalent of the mean, ugly, bitchy girl who makes catty comments about all her friends then wonders why nobody calls her on Friday.
I resent that because I AM the mean ugly bitchy girl that nobody called on Friday. All of your other comments are quite valid.
I tend to like the Clair Booth Luce quote that states “Its time to leave the role of women in society to mother nature, a difficult lady to prove. Once you give women the same opportunity as men you will find out what is or is not in their nature.” (Paraphrasing a bit, but I think I got the quote mostly right).
In light of this quote and blog post, I wonder to myself this: women have the same opportunity as men to run for office, but is simply giving the same opportunity legally enough to truly know what is or is not in their nature? Is women’s lack of participation then a sign of the fact that in their nature they really do not want to lead? No. Women are leaders, we lead at home, lead in the workplace and do run for political office. But a lot of women don’t even consider it an option in this country to lead politically. I really think its the fact that culturally we are still hugely patriarchal. Culturally we are just used to seeing men in positions of power. Hollywood lines up tons of Men in powerful positions in movies and those movies make the money more then a movie with a woman in power does. We are more culturally conditioned for a male voice in leadership then a female voice. In our church attendance we see men at the pulpit, and since the majority of the Religious community attends patriarchally dominate churches with men in the decision making roles, this is a message many women are hearing
I think that is what you are pointing out in this video. I argue it a little differently here in my comment, but I think we both get to the same basic point.
To point out I just found out about you last night from a friend, when I asked about Libertarian women. I am glad to find you, and like your videos. You argue most of what I like. I may have different arguments or viewpoints for somethings, and will admit Ron Paul just isn’t my type of guy (due to my own personal preference on political style, his way of arguing his points don’t persuade me, even if I do argue much of what he says, and I have my difference of opinion in International Relations).
I think the Libertarian movement can be mainstream, but we need more libertarians in education like somebody else said. More people to help educate young people on what liberty truly is. And for the most part, young people get it when they hear it. They understand it and they like it. We are not a block though. And I like that you point that out in one of your other videos. That we have the right to our different opinions, but that we all share one thing in common, Government needs to be limited to their constitutional roles.
Kid,
I’ve got to ask: Do your parents know you have a blog and post these videos? Do you have their written permission to do so?
You’re about 12 to 14 years of age, right? At least, that’s how you look. Please get permission from Mommy and Daddy, enjoy the sleepovers and the prom, and come back when you reach legal age.
Thank you.
Thanks for watching my videos. I’m 24. Trololololol.
Get rid of the blue tongue. It is ridiculous. BTW, the preceding statement (by you) is something my 15 year old would say. Was that your intent? Why do you not comment on any of the numerous nuanced informed critiques? Are you really a marketing student?
Twenty-four? Kid, you look about 12, maybe 14. Prepubescent, for sure. Saying you’re 24 is like saying Dick Carlson’s Boy doesn’t wear a bow tie.
Hate to go even the slightest hint Birther on you, but you might better post a certificate of your entry to the planet and a notarized letter from the folks on this website.
Man don’t you hate it when women look all young and don’t show their age? Oh wait, no.
Fuck off old hag
Julie as a free market advocate you should be able to realize that pop culture doesn’t ‘target’ women as much as it caters to women’s wants via market demand. The women’s magazine that promote promiscuity and socialism promote these things because they believe that’s what their female readers want. If they tried to put out something different it probably wouldn’t sell as well.
That said we should always try to have a bigger voice in the market place of ideas. Especially because Keynesian economics will crash the economy and there will be less resources for the welfare state i.e. government subsidizing of female hypergamy. So a lot of these fun and games will come to an end eventually.
Why are there less Libertarians among women?I don’t think that is because women are passive and submissive.It has to do that women value security and Libertarian principles are more about personal freedom and self-responsibility rather than security. To address this issue,women have to realize that they are capable of standing on their own and that civil liberties and their freedoms are more important rather than a political belief that provides them with security.Also,women should also be given roles into the movement.