Why So Few Women Anarchists?

[brucethecollie]

A while back I heard someone say that few women were anarchists because they were on the whole, stupid.  I rolled my eyes at that because I was curious as to why there did seem to be less women than men in anarchists, libertarian, and anti-statist groups, and a vague generalization didn't answer my question.  Many people agreed with this man, by the way.  No one offered real insight.  So I came here, lol.  

 

If you have any thoughts as to why this is, would you mind sharing?  I have a few regarding the way our society and it's gender norms function and where pop culture stands and how it influences the majority...I grew up talking to girl friends mostly about boys, makeup, clothes, and people and talking to guy friends mostly about ideas, politics, sports, history, and science.  I enjoyed my talks with boys much more than girls-though I did like being friendly and familial with girls and we could bond well over things pertaining only to females.  

 

I probably have to give my dad much of the credit.  He talked to me and my 4 other siblings about all the same things.  Many of my girl friends had dads that would pat their head, tell them they were pretty, and then talk things over with their brothers. From a young age I had regular long talks with my dad about philosophy, morality, astronomy, physics, religion, and so on.  I wonder how much that had to do with my being easily inclined to listen to a group that seemingly consists of more of one gender than the other. Well, that and being taught critical thinking.  My husband actually taught me it doesn't matter where a good idea comes from if it is sound.  But, ideas have to be let in and mulled over to have a chance.  I have seen the reactions of women groomed to feminism regarding anarchism or anything questioning government and it seems to me many are trained to be quick to dismiss learning more due to a vacuous comment from an individual (like the one that said all women are stupid).  

 

Anyway, I'm new to this and trying to connect dots (my mind is all over the place) and your insights will be greatly appreciated.  I'm very much interested.  

 

 

[Archimedes]

I think it's because they have a pretty strong herd mentality. Most women crave social cohesion and don't like to stick out. Your average woman who just cares about reproduction and finding a good men, doesn't see the point in anarchy. In fact, it's contraproductive to her goals, because the state provides all the goodies that help her to achieve them. The anarchist women I've met are highly intelligent and indpependent thinkers. Because of that, they are usually not accepted by their female peers and seek male friendships instead.

[Eternal Growth]

Because sex/gender evolved solely for the purpose of reproduction (and do not exist in asexual species), differences between the sexes all come back to which reproductive strategy is optimal for each sex.

 

Genetic research has shown that, throughout history, 80% of female humans have successfully reproduced within their lifetimes, while only 40% of male humans have succeeded at the same.

 

A female can hence fairly safely rely upon being able to pass on her genetics to the next generation. There is no reproductive need to individuate, compete, think independently from the tribe, etc. Males will want to use their eggs to transmit their own DNA and will provide for them, if need be.

 

Males, on the other hand, are in tough competition against other males. For every 4 males that had children, 6 were genetic dead-ends. Important to notice here: reproductively successful males are a minority of the male population. Conformity won't work. You'll have to think independently, individuate and work hard in competition with the others — and if you don't, you'll be in the 6 and the men who do will be in the 4.

 

Now, it's a bit more nuanced than this: A female is in competition with other female for the male partner who has the highest social status and hence greatest access to resources with which to raise her children; however this form of competition actually leads to greater conformity to the mainstream culture (the values of the most dominant males), not less.

 

Of course, this is focusing purely on the primitive brain biology that got us here and because of the prefrontal cortex etc. we actually have the ability to make decisions on how we live our lives separately from these drives, and so there is probably a lot more (social, cultural, parenting etc.) going on beyond this in actual men and women. An interesting question would be what the factors are that differentiate the small number of women who are drawn towards independent thinking from others. An atypical exposure to male hormones during development, possibly?

[J. D. Stembal]

The State serves hypergamous behavior and the interests of women much like marriage and religion did before it. It is a myth that women need resources to survive while they are pregnant. Pregnant women can weight lift, so they can preform other tasks. They can also perform basic tasks while a baby is nursing or sleeping against her skin. The claim that pregnancy, child birth and rearing are largely debilitating, much like a disease or illness, is flat incorrect.

Back during the Dawn of Man, before we had agriculture or an organized society, it was a female free-for-all to see who could have the most children since child mortality was dismally high. However, since the advent of oral birth control - which men STILL do not have - women have enjoyed the pinnacle of female prosperity. Women have children precisely when they want them, and can extract resources from men through the guns of the State. Men and society cater to every whim of women, yet women bitch about how unfair it is to be a woman?

Anarchy, philosophy, and voluntarism are a reaction to the rampant misandry and feminist nonsense in the world. The modern state is essentially organized feminism and male disposability. The reason these forums (and anarchy in general) are so unpopular with women is because we know the about the schemes women are up to and we are seeking to end it peacefully without resorting to their dastardly tactics of violence.

 

However, women know that Briffault's Law works. If women can collectively shift their ire to political anarchists, and man-shame us to death when our movement gets big enough. We will become the new demonized and attacked supremacist rape group, so much so that no woman will want to associate with us.

 

Being an anarchist will likely bring about gene death for its followers, or at least the majority of them.

[Lars93]

One factor that I believe comes into play is, that women are much more centered on the bell curve, Women like Ayn Rand seem like extreme utliers to me, even more than a male counterpart would've been.

I rarely see avg. intelligence people subscribing fully to anarchism.

 

 

I do think you're right that your treatment by your dad was unique in your path to anarchy. If other girls' dads don't care to discuss these ideas with them, and their moms don't care much for politics (which most don't), then that's the model they are left with. That it doesn't matter to women. And I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing.

Please keep in mind, I am not arguing the morality of the females being allowed to vote.

If you look at how politics changed after female voting, female disinterest seems to be a BIG problem.

[brucethecollie]

Because sex/gender evolved solely for the purpose of reproduction (and do not exist in asexual species), differences between the sexes all come back to which reproductive strategy is optimal for each sex.

 

Genetic research has shown that, throughout history, 80% of female humans have successfully reproduced within their lifetimes, while only 40% of male humans have succeeded at the same.

 

A female can hence fairly safely rely upon being able to pass on her genetics to the next generation. There is no reproductive need to individuate, compete, think independently from the tribe, etc. Males will want to use their eggs to transmit their own DNA and will provide for them, if need be.

 

Males, on the other hand, are in tough competition against other males. For every 4 males that had children, 6 were genetic dead-ends. Important to notice here: reproductively successful males are a minority of the male population. Conformity won't work. You'll have to think independently, individuate and work hard in competition with the others — and if you don't, you'll be in the 6 and the men who do will be in the 4.

 

Now, it's a bit more nuanced than this: A female is in competition with other female for the male partner who has the highest social status and hence greatest access to resources with which to raise her children; however this form of competition actually leads to greater conformity to the mainstream culture (the values of the most dominant males), not less.

 

Of course, this is focusing purely on the primitive brain biology that got us here and because of the prefrontal cortex etc. we actually have the ability to make decisions on how we live our lives separately from these drives, and so there is probably a lot more (social, cultural, parenting etc.) going on beyond this in actual men and women. An interesting question would be what the factors are that differentiate the small number of women who are drawn towards independent thinking from others. An atypical exposure to male hormones during development, possibly?

 

 This is interesting...something I've never read about.  And your final question- I met a scientist at a medical conference that posed the same question and suspected that it really was possible.  Others in the group who were listening to his talk walked out.  Sigh...why are questions so scary?

 

 

I do think you're right that your treatment by your dad was unique in your path to anarchy. If other girls' dads don't care to discuss these ideas with them, and their moms don't care much for politics (which most don't), then that's the model they are left with. That it doesn't matter to women. And I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. Women do have an important job in focusing on raising their children peacefully, and hopefully have a man who can serve as the political motivator in the family. We as women/moms do have a need to "keep the peace" when collaborating with other moms to raise our children. To be seen as weird or extreme may jeopardize the community resources the children need to thrive. Don't know if any of that helps at all.

 

Yeah, that all makes a lot of sense.  I do notice most women just voting as their husbands or fathers do.  I happen to be the political motivator in my family (maybe because my husband was raised in rural Mexico by women) and it is challenging in our community-especially homeschooling.  I am sure I'm seen as extreme   My defense is to come bearing cookies.  Usually helps.

 

 

The State serves hypergamous behavior and the interests of women much like marriage and religion did before it. It is a myth that women need resources to survive while they are pregnant. Pregnant women can weight lift, so they can preform other tasks. They can also perform basic tasks while a baby is nursing or sleeping against her skin. The claim that pregnancy, child birth and rearing are largely debilitating, much like a disease or illness, is flat incorrect.

 

Anarchy, philosophy, and voluntarism are a reaction to the rampant misandry and feminist nonsense in the world. The modern state is essentially organized feminism and male disposability. The reason these forums (and anarchy in general) are so unpopular with women is because we know the about the schemes women are up to and we are seeking to end it peacefully without resorting to their dastardly tactics of violence.

 

 

Being an anarchist will likely bring about gene death for its followers, or at least the majority of them.

 

I totally agree that pregnancy isn't largely debilitating. Even if it was for me (physically speaking).  If someone feels trapped while pregnant then they should not have become pregnant to begin with.  

 

Many feminists I've heard thoughts from are aware of male disposability and feel embedded patriarchy (according to them the ideas that, girls need to look pretty, boys need to be tough) in society is equally a disservice to men and women.  I often wonder how to reach them.  I feel that they are somewhat close to getting to the root of things...that principles, respect for truth, and personal responsibility are the routes to a society where people don't feel oppressed. 

 

 I get the impression that many men wonder why women do what they do (the negative stuff) and I think we are mostly brainwashing our children.  My daughter has been told by random people in public "girls rule and boys drool" to which she was like "huh...?"  And my son has been told "ladies first" to which he once replied "why?" A man told him, "Well, because girls are smaller and more delicate."  My son said, "My sister is bigger than me and really strong." The man said, "Clearly, she is older than you though."  My son, getting frustrated said, "We are twins! And I was born a minute before her."  So then the man continues..."Oh, well, one day you will be bigger and stronger."  so my son says "You don't know that...and my sister lets me go first all the time, she doesn't care!"  The man gave up and walked away.  Then human nature kicks in with my daughter who is like, "So mom...are girls supposed to go first?  I would like to always be first..."  So we have a long talk and what I see in both my 6 year olds is confusion.  They understand what I'm saying but they have this seed of doubt because how can mom be right and all these other people in society be wrong?  It feels like a lot to be up against. I don't tell my son "don't bother your sister".  I tell my daughter "talk to your brother about it" or "step away from the game if you don't like how it's going."  So she either argues with him until they reach an agreement or she stops playing with him and they resume playing when they feel like it.  It's more peaceful, nobody is whining, she learns she is not a victim, and he isn't shamed or made to feel that he is at fault for doing something she doesn't like.  We've been raising kids with a certain mentality for so long I can see why the adults are struggling the way they are.

 

The culture for girls is toxic from the beginning. It's the same for boys.  And it manifests in modern society...and it serves no one.  The women who take advantage of men don't see it as clearly taking advantage of men because they are miserable and have been taught things through filters that blind them to truth.  I hope I'm teaching my kids how to see truth and to stand up for themselves because only then will we have more men and women who choose their actions wisely and maintain personal responsibility and don't enable the dilutions of any group.  

[J. D. Stembal]

In a welfare-state democracy I suppose it is. I meant in the more traditional sense of women keeping domain over the home and the men doing the external organizing and resource-gathering.

In the first part of your post, it seems you're arguing that women should be left alone to rear children, since they're fully capable of supporting themselves and the children on their own...is that your view?

 

The rest of your post seems a rant about the eventual extinction of rational and peaceful men. Quite a bleak and disheartening prediction. I feel a lot of anger and heaviness from you, which I am sorry that you're bearing right now. I'd love to chat with you about that some time.

 

Of course, I carry a lot of anger. I'm very glad it is obvious to everyone because it is there and I draw on it as a fire consumes wood for fuel. It is my energy and lifeblood. I used to try to hide it and deny it, hence the twenty years that I spent getting wasted all the time.

 

I'm not attempting to paint a bleak picture for voluntarists. In fact, I am holding onto the hope that we can make a difference in the world. Considering the reception of the Roosh V. thread, and the larger topic of men's rights, if the philosophically minded and peaceful men cannot sell the goods to women, it will be all for naught. That's just human nature, I'm sorry to say.

 

For example, in my last relationship which ended 15 months ago, I challenged the idea of feminism being a social good, and started to think of it as a hate group, and rightly so. This was around the time of #KillAllMen. My girlfriend was not convinced. Eventually, she capitulated and started calling herself a humanist instead of a feminist. Her best friends were also feminists and would have conversations about me behind my back ridiculing me for being a "men's right activist."

 

I know that not every woman is like that, but men have to be realistic about this. Society isn't going to change overnight, and some of us will die childless for our convictions. That's a fact. You will notice that Stefan waited until after marriage to start a philosophy channel on YouTube. That was very clever of him to do. I'm coming at it from the reverse angle. I've found philosophy first, and I'm trying to figure out how to use it successfully to find the perfect mate. If I cannot find a woman that wants me, so be it. My father already had my children for me, so gene death does not apply to me.

 

Fear the man who is not willing to compromise or refrain from speaking his mind!

 

P.S.: I've wanted to chat with you since we were talking hammocks and footwear a while back. I would be glad to have a conversation, friendly or heated, or whatever we choose. My name is jonathan.stembal on Skype.

[Donnadogsoth]

We're engaged in sexual selection, and that selection reproduces personality traits.  So what kinds of personalities we see in men and women are not just forms moulded by culture, but are also selected for genetically.

 

If women are disinterested in politics, logic, and science, that's partially because that's how men wanted them to be.

 

If men are disinterested in shopping, fashion, and gossip, that's partially because that's how women wanted them to be.

 

The selection process isn't perfect, as genes, I'd imagine, can cluster, but humanity has had a long, long, long time to select.

[David Ottinger]

In the most simplest sense, men are more focused on what they can achieve in order to provide a better life for others, especially loved ones, while women are more focused on who they can attract for the purpose of contributing to her interests in order to give her offspring the best life possible.

 

Further consider that the part of our brain that allows for this sort of cognition is one of the last things to develop -- which typically doesn't complete until the age of 25.  Compare this to women's fertility time clock, and it becomes rather apparent that, biologically speaking, women in their earlier life are driven more towards goals that optimize procreation. 

 

Broadly speaking, women think, "What can you do for me to make life better?"   Men think, "What can I do to make life better?"

 

Thus, men seek to understand the principles that govern life in order to manipulate the environment to their will while women look to those men who achieve such power, thereby rewarding them with offspring, thus together making life better for all.

 

 

This does not excuse women from understanding philosophy.  It actually makes it an imperative, otherwise she cannot distinguish a man posturing his greatness from a man actually delivering progress.

[Donnadogsoth]

This does not excuse women from understanding philosophy.  It actually makes it an imperative, otherwise she cannot distinguish a man posturing his greatness from a man actually delivering progress.

 

How can we best create a society that maximises incentives towards discovering principle?

[green banana]

Why not hear what libertarian women have to say?

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-are-there-fewer-libertarian-women-because-anarchist-men-are-disgusting/

https://julieborowski.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-are-there-so-few-libertarian-women/

http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2012/10/04/oppression-and-the-lack-of-libertarian-women/

 

 

Money quotes Lily Goldberg: 

 

Yeah, that’s right. I said it. The reason more women don’t identify as libertarian? It’s the men who identify as libertarian. Because exceptions like Austin or Judd Weiss notwithstanding, they suck. So much so that asking why more women don’t want to be libertarian is like asking why more women don’t want to be strippers, but worse, because libertarian women aren’t getting paid to get pawed and yapped at by oblivious losers.

 

 

You know what? I’d like to meet the guys who not only believe that, but act on it, because that sounds fucking hot. Seriously, if libertarian guys spent less time reading about Howard Roark and more time actually acting like him, they’d be rolling in a sea of legs.

 

 

[David Ottinger]

How can we best create a society that maximises incentives towards discovering principle?

 

 

I prefer promoting emergence over design.  So, first off, if *we* were able to design (i.e. create) a society, then that would be an argument for the state.  i.e. The state is a 'we' that tries to design a society.   So, right off the bat, this questions is essentially asking:  How do we socially engineer a society towards discovering principles?    (And, maybe you mean something else here that I've misunderstood?  Please correct me if so.)

 

 

Secondly, we are already naturally predisposed to pursuing this discovery of principles.  We are inherently empirical; we just happen to also be prone to logical fallacies while we fumble through this discovery of governing principles.  Religion, for example, is a primitive form of existentialism which has now moved into what we call the sciences.  A similar example, albeit more microcosmic, is the move from alchemy to chemistry. 

 

 

So, in short, just as it's true that whatever one practices on a daily basis, he/she will become.  That truth also extends to the group dynamic of a particular collective.  You can look into the development of Zappos' company values/motto to get an idea of what I mean.  In other words, an individual can only affect what one commits him/her-self to on a daily basis.  From there one can collaborate with those who share similar interests.  And what eventually emerges is a network of people collaborating in some ways while also competing in others with others -- hopefully in a non-violent ways; something we have yet to achieve as a species.   

[Archimedes]

Yeah, that’s right. I said it. The reason more women don’t identify as libertarian? It’s the men who identify as libertarian. Because exceptions like Austin or Judd Weiss notwithstanding, they suck. So much so that asking why more women don’t want to be libertarian is like asking why more women don’t want to be strippers, but worse, because libertarian women aren’t getting paid to get pawed and yapped at by oblivious losers.

 

Does anarchy really need women who don't take part in it because of the lack of successful men? Do we really need people who don't pursue values they philosophical agree with, because they don't like the people who hold similar values? It seems the women Lily Goldberg talks about just value access to successful men more than first principles. Which of course is a valid life choice, but then they aren't potential anarchists to begin with. 

[David Ottinger]

Why not hear what libertarian women have to say?

 

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-are-there-fewer-libertarian-women-because-anarchist-men-are-disgusting/

 

https://julieborowski.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-are-there-so-few-libertarian-women/

 

http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2012/10/04/oppression-and-the-lack-of-libertarian-women/

 

 

 

Money quotes Lily Goldberg: 

 

 

 

 

 

That Lily Goldberg comes off as a feminist masquerading as a libertarian.  Anyhow, hard to take her seriously.

 

The middle article by Julie was on point, and agreed with the perspective.  A thought I wanted to raise myself:  Women tend to conform to the group, and in return nurture the group.  Which she can't do if she is not accepted.  And, mainstream view is very in line with statism at this time.  So, women assume the risk of being ostracized by the men of the main group -- which is more dominant.  

 

Also, on a side note, the women accepted can also be home wreckers, i.e. sabotage the group by poisoning the well.  Which, is what Lily Goldberg did.  

 

 

And, the 3rd article, I didn't find any relevance to it.  I understood it mostly as a comparison between circumstance and oppression and how some people conflate the two.   

[percentient]

OP, I think those men are not being as vacuous as you think. Derogatory, perhaps.

 

After all, educated and intelligent women do have lower IQ. And whatever intellect is there, it's not being used in the masculine, political or philosophical sense, at least if the above quote is correct. She's saying women like to sit back, focus on immediate gains and wait for men to change the world before hopping on the bandwagon. It's not like men have an ample supply of attractive libertarian women to pick from, but in the case of women that absence of awesome dateable men is presented as the reason for not pursuing the ideology. I didn't make an extensive survey into attractive women within the community before taking the arguments seriously.

 

I think she's right. And the solution for men is to lower our standards for intelligence and become leaders.

[J. D. Stembal]

Why not hear what libertarian women have to say?

 

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-are-there-fewer-libertarian-women-because-anarchist-men-are-disgusting/

 

https://julieborowski.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-are-there-so-few-libertarian-women/

 

http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2012/10/04/oppression-and-the-lack-of-libertarian-women/

 

 

 

Money quotes Lily Goldberg: 

 

 

 

 

Women also find the penis revolting. Perhaps we should all remove ours so women can finally be content.

 

Dear Anarcho-Capitalist Guys: No, We Will Never Sleep With You

By Lily Goldberg

 

So I really wasn’t planning on writing something like this, but as a woman who’s been in the libertarian scene for sometime, it’s something that I finally have to get off my chest, especially now that so many people are wondering why more women aren’t libertarian.

 

It’s a bullshit question, of course, because many of us are. But there is a real problem that might prevent a lot of us who otherwise think libertarianism is awesome from openly saying so. No, it’s not that libertarianism is predominantly masculine (sorry, Mother Jones). The issue isn’t the quantity of men in the movement; it’s the quality.

 

Yeah, that’s right. I said it. The reason more women don’t identify as libertarian? It’s the men who identify as libertarian. Because exceptions like Austin or Judd Weiss notwithstanding, they suck. So much so that asking why more women don’t want to be libertarian is like asking why more women don’t want to be strippers, but worse, because libertarian women aren’t getting paid to get pawed and yapped at by oblivious losers.

 

And the worst part is that the more libertarian a guy is, the more likely he is to be completely fucking incapable of acting like a sexual being. And not in a sexy way either. That Mother Jones piece on the “libertarian women” question is actually particularly hilarious because of this line:

Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It’s a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that

they

are these folks. They believe they’ve been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they’d naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

You know what? I’d like to meet the guys who not only believe that, but act on it, because that sounds fucking hot. Seriously, if libertarian guys spent less time reading about Howard Roark and more time actually acting like him, they’d be rolling in a sea of legs.

 

If you’re the kind of guy who walks around making others respect your dominance, and telling the busybodies who interfere to get lost, I can’t speak for other chicks, but I’d give you my number and probably offer to sell you my body at a market rate. If you’re not that guy yet, but are making a good faith effort to get there that you can demonstrate to me, then you might still get a date, because chicks like guys who try to improve themselves at least as much as we like the guys who don’t need it. The second group might wuss out when they’re up against a challenge they’re not used to, after all.

 

But these guys are fucking rare in the libertarian movement, and they tend to be on the more moderate, Reason Magazine side of things. The most pathetic ones, on the other hand, are almost universally anarcho-capitalists.

 

You’ve all seen the worst of them, I bet. The hamplanets in fedoras who run around quoting Lew Rockwell at a volume that would peel the chrome off a Chevy truck, and a pitch that shatters glass? The ones who will approach you and instead of trying to get to know you as a human being, will interrogate you about your first principles, then smugly declare that they’ve won the debate against you when you give up in disgust, as if they’ve somehow proved they’re John fucking Galt because they can shout you into apathy? And because they’re John Galt, you should OPEN YOUR LEGS NOW AND SUBMIT TO YOUR MASTER, DAGNY?!

 

RELATED: 12 Reasons You’re Not Getting Laid By a Libertarian Lady

Or the guys who look like a bench press would snap their bones in two, who smell like they’ve been living either seriously off the grid or in a filthy corner of their mom’s basement, who probably haven’t seen sunlight since the fourth grade, and who usually try to approach you with pickup lines that sound like they were written by the libertarian equivalent of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Like, “excuse me, do you know the state is a lie? Also, what are you drinking?”

 

One, we’re at a libertarian conference. I know the talking points on the state, you condescending human milkweed. Two, what if I was a minarchist, would you still be hitting on me? Actually, don’t answer that. I bet you’ve got a paddle named “Alchian” that you’re desperate to try on a girl like me. Three, the day I tell you what I’m drinking is the day I want one of those drugs you want legalized inserted nonconsensually into it.

 

And yes, I realize this is mean to say, because it’s probably not these guys’ fault. Observing them, you can just tell there’s something wrong with them that makes them the ultimate ladyboner killer. And no, it’s not because of “lack of empathy.” I’ve dated a few sociopaths, and trust me, those guys are scum, but they’re sauve scum. They’ll pretend that everything you’re saying is the word of God, react to your emotions with pitch perfect responses, and basically manipulate you until you’re putty in their hands. Yeah, their hearts are an emotionless black void of selfishness, but you don’t realize that until it’s too late.

 

These guys, on the other hand, clearly have feelings. A lot of them. And if you’re ever drunk enough to not care who’s buying the next round, they’ll lapse into telling you about them at great length. The problem is that they just don’t realize that anyone else has feelings, not because of malice, but because for some reason they just can’t tell that you’re showing them. Like, if you screamed because you saw a spider (something I’ll shamefully admit I’m prone to doing), these guys will lecture you on how harmless common varieties of household spider are, rather than taking the cue to stomp the thing and get chivalry points for being strong and fearless. It’s not their fault, because they probably can’t tell that we’re afraid, but that doesn’t mean we have to fuck them.

 

Sorry guys, natural selection is a bitch.

 

Now, if you think about it, it’s actually not surprising that anarcho-capitalism has an innate appeal to these sorts of guys. The State, besides being legitimately terrible in all the ways we agree on, survives because it does everything they can’t. In fact, the State’s kind of the perfect sociopath. Its leaders prey on peoples’ emotions under the pretense of caring about them, commit violence and then make people think it was the victim’s fault, and never give up trying to control everything you do under the pretense of caring. And yes, I agree with the anarcho-capitalists that this sucks, but the fact is that it works and you need to be able to beat the State at its own game if you want to get rid of it.

 

And the thing is that for these guys, anarcho-capitalism is clearly attractive because it seems like a refuge from needing to learn social skills. Why bother learning how to talk to women when prostitution is legal and you can just pay us to pay attention to you? Why bother convincing people to like you when you can pay a private defense contractor to keep the bullies off? Why bother learning to function in a workplace when you can just start your own business, and your own currency if that business fails according to the standards of the existing one? And whenever anyone points out that they won’t survive, the response is always “the state is worse than anything that could happen to us in a free market.” Because they think a free market means a place where you don’t have to play politics, ie that you don’t have to interact with people except as customers with quantifiable dollars that don’t require them to learn confusing, ambiguous signals that their brains aren’t equipped to handle. It seems like a dream.

 

Or it would be, if you ignore the fact that capitalism is at least as much about salesmanship as it is about efficiency or inventiveness. In fact, plenty of CEOs probably got where they are by being more likable, and not being afraid to steal other peoples’ ideas. This is true everywhere, even in seeming paradises for social rejects like Silicon Valley. Actually, social skills are worth even more of a premium when there are no laws around, because there’s no one to protect you if someone has a bigger army and wants to beat you up. You have to talk them out of it without screaming about Rothbard.

 

The thing is, I’m not necessarily against an anarcho-capitalist society, but I’m okay with it for completely different reasons than these guys. I know that if I ever needed to make a living in their world, I could do it super easily as a libertarian lady, because all you need is a halfway decent body and the hustle to make guys think they can have you, and all their rational market signals will shut off. Ask Cathy Reisenwitz, or any number of other women who’ve offered basically the ideological equivalent of camgirl experiences to lonely libertarian guys, how that works. It’s a pretty good gig, if you don’t mind how rapey they can get.

 

And yeah, hate to break it to you, libertarian guys, but those libertarian women you have crushes on? Unless you’re part of their wider social circle and can demonstrate that you’re fun to be around independent of your politics, they’re not going to fuck you, no matter how often you tell them that you love their videos. They’re going to find men who relate to them as people, not as blowup dolls for liberty. And here’s another sad fact for you: plenty of women who claim to be anarcho-capitalists are probably in it for the money, because they know you’ll shell out for their Paypals just for a look at their tits if they pretend to like all the right people. Which, hey, makes them good capitalists, I guess, so…points for being halfway there?

 

I know this isn’t universal. I’ve met hot anarcho-capitalists: they tend to be either European or the grungy stoner types who put more emphasis on the “anarchist” part than the “capitalist” part. But the number of them I’ve met is dwarfed by the number of unbearable, humorless, hectoring spergs I have to deal with on a regular basis. And because so many of those hectoring spergs seem to have disproportionate voices in the libertarian movement, it makes it really hard for me, as a woman, to admit to being in the same camp. Because social pressure is a thing, and when you’re already considered a traitor to your sex for disliking Hillary Clinton, you really don’t want other women thinking you’re desperate or sad enough to spend time with Neckbeard McGoldbug.

 

I guess at the end of the day, all I want these guys to take away from this is that if they want to be part of libertarianism just because it’s a political cause they believe in, that’s cool, but they’re not really helping and they need to clean up their act for that reason. And if they want to meet women through the movement, then they really need to clean up their act, because no woman is going to come with twenty feet of them as-is. Call it tough love.

 

No, not that kind of love. I still won’t touch you til you stop smelling like Hot Pockets.

 

And women seriously wonder why men don't want to sleep with women with this kind of rhetoric floating around. To be honest, we do want to fuck you, but we also want to be one hundred miles away by the time you wake up in the morning, so we don't have to hear you bitch about men and how you have it so hard.

 

According to this article, men are, in no particular order:

 

Neckbearded

Smelly

Scum

Weak

Creepy

Rapey

Perverted

Unbearable

Humorless

Unambitious

Sociopathic

Manipulative

Selfish

Incapable of sex

 

Let's all play a game and see which traits we can affix to Lily, and then we can tell her all about her stunning qualities.

[green banana]

because of the lack of successful men?

 

I think Goldberg has lower standards. She does not dream of Libertarian supermen, rather she thinks that Libertarians are sub par when it comes to attractiveness and or status. And looking at people like Cantwell I tend to agree. 

[Archimedes]

My question remains. Why should we care about people who prefer aesthetics over philosophy? Btw, I find it rather telling that her avatar at that blog is a sociopathic tv show character, that survies by manipulating men in her environment. 

[Donnadogsoth]

I prefer promoting emergence over design.  So, first off, if *we* were able to design (i.e. create) a society, then that would be an argument for the state.  i.e. The state is a 'we' that tries to design a society.   So, right off the bat, this questions is essentially asking:  How do we socially engineer a society towards discovering principles?    (And, maybe you mean something else here that I've misunderstood?  Please correct me if so.)

 

 

Secondly, we are already naturally predisposed to pursuing this discovery of principles.  We are inherently empirical; we just happen to also be prone to logical fallacies while we fumble through this discovery of governing principles.  Religion, for example, is a primitive form of existentialism which has now moved into what we call the sciences.  A similar example, albeit more microcosmic, is the move from alchemy to chemistry. 

 

 

So, in short, just as it's true that whatever one practices on a daily basis, he/she will become.  That truth also extends to the group dynamic of a particular collective.  You can look into the development of Zappos' company values/motto to get an idea of what I mean.  In other words, an individual can only affect what one commits him/her-self to on a daily basis.  From there one can collaborate with those who share similar interests.  And what eventually emerges is a network of people collaborating in some ways while also competing in others with others -- hopefully in a non-violent ways; something we have yet to achieve as a species.   

 

I don't see why design is a bad thing. If we want to divert water from the Yukon river in Alaska to the American Southwest, we need to understand principles of geology, nuclear physics, and hydrodynamics in order to design the system. Surely the development of the creative principle is on par with or greater than the profundity of the NAWAPA. Why wouldn't we attempt to design our society that way? If anarchism doesn't interfere with natural law, and is an expression of natural law, it should be amenable to having society design and develop itself according to universal principles. A society of anarchists is also a “we” to the degree its members cooperate. If there are principles governing the fostering of creativity, such a society, to the degree it is sane, would seek to implement those principles, however possible.

[AncapFTW]

I don't see why design is a bad thing. If we want to divert water from the Yukon river in Alaska to the American Southwest, we need to understand principles of geology, nuclear physics, and hydrodynamics in order to design the system. Surely the development of the creative principle is on par with or greater than the profundity of the NAWAPA. Why wouldn't we attempt to design our society that way? If anarchism doesn't interfere with natural law, and is an expression of natural law, it should be amenable to having society design and develop itself according to universal principles. A society of anarchists is also a “we” to the degree its members cooperate. If there are principles governing the fostering of creativity, such a society, to the degree it is sane, would seek to implement those principles, however possible.

Except that you are manipulating people, not nature.  That means that you have to work with them, convincing them to do things your way, not alter them based solely on your views of how things should be.

[David Ottinger]

I don't see why design is a bad thing. If we want to divert water from the Yukon river in Alaska to the American Southwest, we need to understand principles of geology, nuclear physics, and hydrodynamics in order to design the system. Surely the development of the creative principle is on par with or greater than the profundity of the NAWAPA. Why wouldn't we attempt to design our society that way? If anarchism doesn't interfere with natural law, and is an expression of natural law, it should be amenable to having society design and develop itself according to universal principles. A society of anarchists is also a “we” to the degree its members cooperate. If there are principles governing the fostering of creativity, such a society, to the degree it is sane, would seek to implement those principles, however possible.

 

 

Emergence vs Design is quite a lengthy discussion.   And, it's not that there is anything wrong with design in and of itself.   It's when we're arrogant enough to pretend our understanding of principles has achieved omniscience thereby giving us an ego that begins to dictate how things ought to be rather than accepting how things are.  For example, sure, you can build that irrigation system, but what does that do to the equilibrium of the ecosystem? 

 

And, you may try to argue that the sciences will give us answers.  And, it's true they will.  But, to what extent?  What is it that we've overlooked?  Simply put, we do not have the ability to dictate the laws of nature; we only have the ability to become aware of them and then act accordingly.   To try and put this into perspective, in the abstract sense we can imagine a perfect sphere.  But, can you make one?  To my knowledge it's not possible.  There will always be an anomaly.  The golden ratio and pi are representations of this. 

 

 

The ecosystem is an emergent system, and when altered its equilibrium shifts.   An anarchical society would also be an emergent ecosystem, although one representative of human discourse.   There wouldn't be a single person or group that thought it through to an end.   It would be a decentralized network of people that bring ideas, i.e. designs, to the respective market(s).  Those ideas that are adopted add to the dynamic which eventually emerges into what one could call a system.  Although, I think 'network' would be more suitable given that no one in particular designed it. 

[Donnadogsoth]

How can the NAWAPA be built under an anarchy?

[brucethecollie]

Just read what was shared written by Lily Goldberg.  Thought it was pretty gross.  Yeah, I'd call her gross.  I don't think most women feel that way?  Or I hope not...

[MagnumPI]

Why not a woman who trusts her husband to with political, economic and perhaps even most philosophical decisions, whilst she caters to their personal life together, things "around the house", finances, nutrition, kids, etc.? Isn't that... Abstinence from the state?

 

If I had been working 70 hours a week for the last few years like I am now, even I wouldn't have found philosophy, Austrian economics and whatnot. Maybe they're just too busy for this shit. I mean, there aren't a lot of women in STEM fields. If they make money it'll be in healthcare, occasionally a sales job or business, but that's really rare. She's(decent women) probably got no time or energy after dragging through school and some shitty service job. And that's like 12 hours a day between the two. And if so, personally, I'd take hardworking, dedicated, energetic, driven over anarchist. Especially if it's Reisenwitz, this broad or the other one who had the lists about dating libertarian women.

 

Julie Borowski and the one with the short hair, forget her name. Amanda BIllyrock? Big during the Ron Paul stuff. Anyway, those two seem like they're pretty cool regardless. But decent libertarian/anarchist women are just as rare as good libertarian/anarchist men.

[nickhk]

My question remains. Why should we care about people who prefer aesthetics over philosophy? Btw, I find it rather telling that her avatar at that blog is a sociopathic tv show character, that survies by manipulating men in her environment. 

 

And your avatar is a hairy ape.  Wouldn't avatars be aesthetics anyway?

 

Lily's article reminds me a lot of some basic "how to get a job" articles.  Be clean and groomed, talk about what's relevant, don't be a jerk.  If you're going your own way, it shouldn't matter what she says.  But, it gave me pause, and I wondered "Are other libertarian and ancap types really that bad?"  Because as described, I'm not sure I'd want to hang out with them.

[Archimedes]

Avatars can be an expression of ones views. If you claim to be a person who likes voluntary interaction, first principles and honesty, and then post under the avatar of a character that stands for the exact opposite, than that's odd.

 

I doubt that Lily expressed honest criticism with that article. Because it's both disrespectful towards men and women. For men, it's because she's basically saying your philosophy and values don't matter if you are not meeting women's dating requirements. And in the case of women, it's because she is implying their philosphical views are dependent on the men who express them. Her whole argument is as irrational as refusing to buy your favorite food at the super market, because you might run into some overweight smelly people. Nobody is expecting them to date those guys, just like nobody is expecting me to become friends with people who like the same food. 

[Frosty]

I believe it's for 2 major reasons.

 

1) Women are naturally more cautious and risk averse than men, they tend to prefer safety and when that gets converted into a political stance it comes out as leftist/socialist, I think that's just a biological propensity and is linked with the lack of testosterone.

2) Women are naturally less interested in intellectual topics such as philosophy, this is just something we observe all throughout deep intellectual subjects, they're much rarer in STEM fields, intellectual gathers such as skeptics, atheists and hobby groups for building, designing and working on projects.

 

I don't think women are less capable, at least not significantly, the differences in IQ are well measured now, men tend to have a very slightly higher average and the bell curve of distribution is flatter which means more men are in both the low and high IQ ends of the spectrum than women. Otherwise they're strikingly similar.

 

Women just aren't interested in this stuff, their minds work differently to males, they develop in the absence of testosterone and that creates a fundamental and irreversible difference in the structures of male and female brains. Obviously that's an average and some degree of drift from that average is seen.

 

From my experience generally speaking women tend to prefer the emotional appeal of socializing and the rewards of helping people which is why so many prefer care jobs, teaching, nursing and looking after people and so few pursue intellectual pursuits like STEM education, philosophy, politics and alike. I think to be an anarchist you need to really to have thought deeply about social systems, ethics, morality, politics, philosophy and those sorts of things bore the average woman to tears.

[hannahbanana]

I think the thing about risk aversion makes sense, and also the lack of interest...after all, at least in my experience, even though you won't see as many anarchist women you also won't see as many die-hard political women (unless it is a topic that directly affects them).

I think another factor is that upon entering the libertarian/anarchist community, you will undoubtedly hear things that are not-so-nice about women, but are sadly true. And that can be really hard to hear sometimes, especially at this point in time when you can basically be socially crucified for it. When you're used to such an uproar, it can be disturbing to people to see it being taken seriously.

[J. D. Stembal]

But, it gave me pause, and I wondered "Are other libertarian and ancap types really that bad?"  Because as described, I'm not sure I'd want to hang out with them.

 

Given the thread topic and considering this is a voluntarist forum, why are you concerned with liberty and ancap men? Let the women worry about the men they choose to date.

 

Of course, I am assuming that you are a straight male.

 

Also, did you read the list of adjectives that I culled from the man-shaming article?

 

 

According to this article, men are, in no particular order:

 

Neckbearded

Smelly

Scum

Weak

Creepy

Rapey

Perverted

Unbearable

Humorless

Unambitious

Sociopathic

Manipulative

Selfish

Incapable of sex

 

Let's all play a game and see which traits we can affix to Lily, and then we can tell her all about her stunning qualities.

 

Here it is again. Given the wholesale rape, slaughter, dismemberment and drugging of males throughout history and the present day, can't we give men one little break from not quite measuring up all the time?

 

If I'm not weak, unambitious or creepy to a woman for acting fearful or awkward in her presence, I'm manipulative, narcissistic and sociopathic for showing some spine, flirting and chatting her up. Any women who feels justified in dismissing me because I'm a man openly discussing challenging topics can go buy a battery-powered boyfriend to sate her lusts, because men are wising up to this feminist farce, at least, I suspect that we are here in voluntary world.

 

I know I am.

[Frosty]

I think the thing about risk aversion makes sense, and also the lack of interest...after all, at least in my experience, even though you won't see as many anarchist women you also won't see as many die-hard political women (unless it is a topic that directly affects them).

I think another factor is that upon entering the libertarian/anarchist community, you will undoubtedly hear things that are not-so-nice about women, but are sadly true. And that can be really hard to hear sometimes, especially at this point in time when you can basically be socially crucified for it. When you're used to such an uproar, it can be disturbing to people to see it being taken seriously.

 

A good point, my anecdotal observation is that men accept getting red pilled on gender and sexual theory much easier that women, and I think that's not necessarily because there's some  harsh truths about women, because there's also harsh truths about men, but rather more to do with a common trait with women to take generalities about females personally.

 

There's a really cool woman called Karen Straughan AKA GirlWritesWhat who speaks on gender theory and mens rights quite a lot, and she's pointed out that men like her because she's one of the rare females that can talk about female behaviour in a sensible and sane way without flipping out assuming she's being personally accused of that behaviour.

I actually also spotted a thread started by a woman in the FDR forums...

 

*edit*

 

I've found it now here - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44092-im-a-woman-and-im-stuck/

 

I think it's a great example of this, it reads:

 

"I would love some insight from an outsider (who may have personally dealt with this problem before too?) I am having trouble trusting myself and my feelings. For instance, when I listen to podcasts about how manipulative and money-grubbing women can be I find myself getting a little uncomfortable As if he were pointing me out and specifically telling me I'm a terrible human being. (I realize this is totally irrational, that's the problem) I find that I have had to talk myself down on a number of occasions by reminding myself that I am not like those women at all. I am in a wonderful, committed relationship with a good and virtuous man, and we have spent a long time together working to find reason and consistency in how we live our lives. 

 

My problem is that I am having a hard time dissociating rational feelings from irrational "crazy girl" emotions that could be manipulative on some level. I am really trying to set myself apart from all of the other women out there who manipulate their way to where they want. Has anyone else experienced this?" 

[brucethecollie]

Oh man, I've felt that since I joined this forum and started listening to Stefan's videos.  What is important, I think, is that I'm aware of it and instead of getting upset, I use logic to settle my adrenaline back down.  I"m from the "girl power!" and "girls rule and boys drool!" generation.  Just another way I realize I've been brainwashed you know?  It's not a death sentence though, many women I talk to realize what has been fed to us and we are pushing back.  Something that really opened up my eyes was having a son.  I was forced to empathize with a male in the most extreme way of a parent who wants all good things for their child and is seeing the world through his eyes (as much as possible).  

 

I think it's good to just keep moving forward versus running away from the resistance these feelings bring up.  Also, some humility and some inward thinking and the best thing-honesty with oneself.  I truly believe in "once you know better, do better" and don't look back. 

[CuriousGeorge]

I also came across Freedomainradio doing research because I have a 19 year old son whom I love very much.   I have been worried about him going into society and his ability to find a partner that will actually care for him and their children. I also have three brothers, all who have been given a very rough time by the women that picked them as husbands.  My brothers were not prepared to cope with life, society, government and the opposite sex.  They still struggle, and that will continue.   I however have become conscious of the problems facing men partly from being a first hand witness to it, and wondering why it seemed to be an epidemic for the men around me.  It used to be that I was more conscious of women's rights as our household was centered around

a strong mother figure and the father was mostly absent.

 

As a mother, I want to prepare my kids and hopefully point out the truths that I find so often in the podcasts I now tune into.  I wish I had been able to know the things I now know sooner.  I have to now try to get my son to tune into some of the podcasts on men's issues from a distance. He is in university and lives a ways away.   Society does brainwash women constantly about women's rights to the extent that men are really downplayed.  Many of the men I  know, are being victimized by the whole system. My one brother is moving towards a divorce, his wife had an affair, she has refused to clean the house for four years, refuses to work or contribute financially and is abusive of some of the kids (the boys).  She was a 10 on the attractive scale.  She will rake in the cash as she will get support for being allowed to be this way, by the laws that so often fail the family.  She actually picks on the son that looks like my brother, just for her enjoyment I think.  The older son even called Children's aid on his own mother for her behaviour at one point.  I am in contact with the lad a lot and try to be a woman in his life that is supportive and cares for him. The legal system fails to find much truth in circumstances like this.

My brother works full time, cleans. cooks and does activities with the kids. The wife sits on the couch with her computer.

 

I am pushing back too because it is the right, honest thing to do for me as well as for the males in my life and society.  I have come to accept that women and men are very different. Yes, at one time I would have bristled that Men could ever say that they have a higher IQ or are better at anything than a women. Now, I realize women and men are quite different, for many evolutionary and societal reasons.  I accept this and have peace with it. I hope for a society that both sexs seek human rights, truth and peace.  It is OK to be different. There is infact strength in that for facing a future together.

 

I am trying to educate my family, brothers, mother, kids and husband by telling them things I learn here.  I am glad there are so many young men on this site,

and so many people that can find a place to figure out the many truths that are pointed out here.

 

In talking to my daughter about men's rights as well, perhaps she will be able to appreciate men more than I did growing up.  The fact that she has a Dad that wrestles with her, jokes with her and talks with her all the time i hope will put her in a good position to relate to men.

 

So, I am putting men's rights out there to the men and women in my circle.  I did not have a good father, he was abusive and neglectful, for a long time this made it harder for me to be sympathetic of males.  Having a son, a good husband, and seeing the wreckage of men's lives from unaccountable women has made me realize there are a lot of dangers for men that are not addressed enough. Anger at injustice is what I feel.

 

When I have addressed some of these 70% of women that walk away from marriages about the damage to the kids, they have often responded with

"well kids are resilient".  They have not looked into the statistics. They are not informing themselves, and society crumbles more.

[AccuTron]

"Sigh...why are questions so scary?"

 

Because the answers are.

 

Might tip over a sacred cow.

[David Ottinger]

Ever since I've come across this claim, I've been curious to see if it's true, and so far I'm noticing more and more women participating in the conversation.  So, maybe that claim was premature?   

[mahayana]

I have a theory for why there are so few female anarchists. Women tend not to think analytically. From a young age males tend to be more analytical than females. This is even obvious in the way they play. Young boys are more interested in manipulating objects like blocks or legos when girls seem to prefer playing with dolls and playing house. Boys are inclined to play sports or games that are physical in order to discover hierarchy amongst themselves, establishing who the alphas are. I'm not sure if these differences are more influenced by biology or environment (I personally believe it's slightly more environmental) but it's obvious these differences exist between the sexes. In adulthood, you can also observe more men having professions that require analytical & reasoning skills where women tend to hold jobs that often involve the care of others like nursing, teaching, childcare, etc...  The presence of the hormones estrogen & progesterone in women probably have a strong influence on these occupational leanings. These hormones have a lot to do with why people perceive women to be more emotional and empathetic.

 

When it comes to politics, there's a fairly equal amount of male & female involvement. (at least in my area) The lack of female participation seems to be exclusive to Anarchism.  One person said earlier in the thread that women have an aversion to risk taking. I think this is very true. Women are less likely to go against the grain when baby making hormones are coursing through their body. Women crave stability and safety in order to raise children. Pursuing anarchism in a statist society is very unsettling. Those hormones that make women more emotional also make them more prone to falling for appeals to emotion. I'm completely surrounded by Liberal women demanding for the government to take away the guns, increase the min. wage, increase welfare, free healthcare etc... (Most of these women I see are educated and financially stable so it's not looking for welfare for themselves) Their instinct to care for and nurture extends to their politics where they want the state to play the role of the concerned and caring father. Their inability to reason or to think analytically prevents them from realizing that the state NEVER does what's in the best interest for the people. Women would rather live the illusion that government is here to help than face the fact that the entire foundation of their society is built on lies. Men on the other hand have had practice in challenging hierarchies since childhood so are more likely to challenge the concept of government.

 

For me personally, I think what led me to becoming an anarchist is different from most of the men here. I get the feeling that for a lot of the men here, they are drawn to anarchism because of a strong desire for personal freedom. For me it was more of a humanitarian endeavor. I'm not sure about the other women. From the age of 16 I became interested in politics. I became very interested in government corruption and eventually became so repulsed I tuned out on politics for quite some time. I was always a bleeding heart though and spent time rescuing animals, sponsoring poor kids in other countries, and printing & handing out various pamphlets. Later, I came to love watching the John Stewart Show & Rachel Maddow because they would always stick up for the little guys & weren't afraid to attack & make fools out of shitty politicians. I never associated myself with any political party but the dems appeared to be the least corrupt. The two issues I was most concerned about were war & poverty. I was sickened to live in a country that was responsible for murdering so many people. I also didn't understand why there was so much poverty in a country that was so wealthy. I did a lot of research which eventually led to me coming to terms with the immorality of government. My research also led me to the realization that all of the issues and problems I cared about were either created by the government or exacerbated by it. The only thing that prevented me from becoming a bleeding heart liberal is hours upon hours of research.

 

So yeah, in short my theory is that a lot of women aren't into thinking analytically or rationally so that's why there are so few women anarchists. I know my theory is mainly based on anecdotal data so I might be completely wrong! I'd be curious to learn what led other FDR women here to becoming anarchists.