Why Women Aren’t Libertarians (And How We Can Change That)

12

Why aren’t there more women in the liberty movement? This question has been addressed in the blogosphere time and time again. This time, Kelly Barber responded to Where Them Girls At, by Caitlyn Bates, in her article Oppression and the Lack of Libertarian Women. Kelly gives a phenomenal overview of what oppression is and how women tend to recognize their own oppression and then look to the government to fix it. She writes,

I think it is also difficult for libertarians in particular to recognize oppression when it is not executed by the state. Historically, classical liberals have supported oppressed groups and the recognition of their rights, such as African Americans in the 1960s. However, they traditionally defend these groups against the state, not society in general. Most libertarians theoretically acknowledge that oppression can come from society and not just the government, but in real life, libertarians rarely talk about social oppression. Perhaps this is because libertarians view political oppression as a more important issue. I think social oppression is just as problematic, but even if you disagree, I would argue the two are interconnected and you can’t solve one without addressing the other.

Kelly has it right here—libertarians tend to be very good at confederating against the oppressive forces of the state but lackluster in addressing societal problems like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I would argue, though, that recognizing these problems is an even deeper issue, not just for libertarians, but for Americans as a whole.

Look at the canon of pop literature that informs the public of oppression. In most cases, the state is somehow involved. I am thinking of titles like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, 1984, and Brave New World. Even the media occasionally acknowledges that the state is oppressing its people, like the police’s treatment of Occupy Wall Street, freedom of religion in California, and looming tax increases. But when it comes to social oppression, libertarians, and this country as a whole, falls short. We can easily point to when the state is tyrannous, but when society follows suit, the lines are less clear. Was the Trayvon Martin case an instance of pure racism? Do women continue to earn less than men solely because of sexism? There is no clean answer for these questions, and, thus, they are not asked frequently enough or hastily turned into black and white issues—particularly by our fellow libertarians.

Kelly notes, “If a group is socially oppressed but no one recognizes this oppression, it will be much more likely that they turn to the state for what they perceive as their only way of getting help to level the playing field.” This is true, and it’s why many democrats point to laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as pieces of positive progressive legislation. Civilly-minded voters are drawn to these policies because they feel as though they are being proactive in the fight for an equal society. And, as Caitlyn Bates points out, these civilly-minded voters tend to be women.

But libertarians know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change thought; what one believes can never, hopefully, be regulated. Sexists and racists, “hate crimes” and “hate speech,” will continue to exist in spite of what the law demands. But our own solutions outside of political reform—spontaneous order and awareness activism—is unsatisfying to many because of its non-coercive nature. Paradigm shifts take time, which is frustrating to those who want to see social change, who want to see the end of oppression.

It’s very easy to point to state authoritarianism and say “no,” but we cannot ignore for societal oppression either. As a predominantly white male political group, the crushing effects of social oppression often go unrecognized within our circle, simply because it doesn’t affect the majority of libertarians. This cannot continue. If we want to see change in this country, we have to actively be aware of the states of different members of the population and work on more inclusive messaging. This includes women and minorities; once we start doing that, we might see more of them within our movement.

  • Arlecchino

    This falls into a simple trap. The reality is that social oppression is incompatible with libertarian thinking. Social Oppression denies the power of individual choice. The idea that society can determine your actions without the force of law is not accurate. Can it be harder to do something that society doesn’t deem acceptable, yes; but so what? You have a choice to make. But denying that an individual has the ability to rise above social convention is to deny the essence of freedom and choice. If someone lets somebody else determine their life choices, that is their loss and their mistake, not society’s fault.

    When one body in society determines who the “oppressed” are. This body then determines the appropriate way out of it. Thus new social norms and “oppression” are formed. Look at the disdain second wave feminists cast upon women who wish to be housewives. The system never ends, which means it isn’t an accurate worldview.

    Libertarians can’t win followers by violating the idea that liberty is primary. If you (I’m a conservative) accept the idea that society should be a legitimate factor in people’s choices than you are denying that primum mobile of individual responsibility and liberty.

    Unfortunately you must accept flawed thinking and private injustice. The cost of living in a free society is that people have the right to be idiots. You change things in your personal lives, but once you make this a factor in your ideology you compromise it and accept that outside forces can control your decisions, and then it’s just a hop skip and a jump to tyranny.

    • Arlecchino

      Now can you act within your personal life to support the people around you? YES! but that is a function of personal choice on their part and your life.Making it part of your ideology doesn’t work because you can’t control people’s choices and attitudes and remain libertarian.

  • Shupack

    The smallest minority is the individual…..

    If we fight for individual rights, “minority” rights will come along for the ride.

    • http://rachelburger.com Rachel Burger

      Indeed, but this post is not about rights. This is about social change, and how to become a more inclusive community :)

  • deluks917

    If people want to be racist or hate homosexuals we have no right to stop them. I don’t think we even have a right to stop them from openly discriminating. I don’t even believe in organizing boycotts or protests. As long as they do not directly harm people I see no reason to politically or even socially attack them. Live and let live. The only minority worst protect is the individual.

    I say as a man with painted pink fingernails. If people hate me for that and what it implies that is there free choice. Even if they don’t want to hire me I am ok with that. 

    If the racists and the homophobes and the sexists are truly free no one is.

    • deluks917

      Obviously meant: 

      If the racists and homophobes are NOT truly free, no one is.

    • http://rachelburger.com Rachel Burger

      I absolutely agree that we cannot impose values of tolerance about others. However, I think that if the party wants to be more inclusive, we have to be more aware of our messaging systems. How can we hope to come across as the most welcoming political party to all lifestyles if our speech is loaded and exclusive? I would never advocate for censorship, but more of a realization that the way we present ourselves matters when trying to recruit others.

      • V.A. Luttrell

        testing

    • http://www.clichegames.com Anthony

      The state shouldn’t try and curtail their speech but as individuals I don’t think there is anything wrong with refusing to associate or do business with those who are hateful or spouting ideas that tear down others.

      • deluks917

        Certainly nothing wrong with protesting. I just personally think it is often counter productive. I mean most people stop being racist when they get to know more people of the race they hate. Or they stop hating homosexuals when someone in their family comes out. Directly attacking bigots I think just makes them adopt a siege mentality.

  • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

    Hey folks. Disregard this message. I heard that the comments were broken, so I’m working on a fix.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-Kubicki/703337984 Peter Kubicki

    Only love will bring us all together.