Marcy and Ron,
Men tend to be systemizers, whereas woman tend to be empathizers.
Libertarianism is nothing if it's not a system, whereas the Big Govt types emphasize feel-goodism and compassion, while remaining system-free.
Best, Michael
Michael E.
It has been said, not entirely in jest, that women's suffrage was the beginning of the end for freedom in America, for just the reason you state.
I have no idea if the systemizer/empathizer distinction is true or just an urban legend; and if so, if it is predominantly biological or cultural.
There has obviously been an acceleration in the loss of freedom since 1920 when women't suffrage became part of the federal Constitution (women had the vote in several states before then), but one has to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation.
Rich
P.S. This is an interesting review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_suffrage
Hi Richard,
Actually, our gradual loss of freedom has to do with global warming.
Marcy {
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Newell" <richard@...>
wrote:
Michael E.
It has been said, not entirely in jest, that women's suffrage was
the beginning of the end for freedom in America, for just the reason
you state.
I have no idea if the systemizer/empathizer distinction is true or
just an urban legend; and if so, if it is predominantly biological or
cultural.
There has obviously been an acceleration in the loss of freedom
since 1920 when women't suffrage became part of the federal
Constitution (women had the vote in several states before then), but
one has to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation.
Rich
P.S. This is an interesting review:
From: dredelstein@...
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Where Are The Libertarian Women???Marcy and Ron,
Men tend to be systemizers, whereas woman tend to be empathizers.
Libertarianism is nothing if it's not a system, whereas the Big
Govt types emphasize feel-goodism and compassion, while remaining
system-free.
Best, Michael
From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:29 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Where Are The Libertarian Women???Dear Ron and All,
Thank you for the article! Although it disturbs me when I detect
stereotyping, I will suspend my judgement right now and engage in
some stereotyping myself. In my opinion, the reason there are
few
women Libertarians is that the Libertarian movement is primarily
one
of ideas and debate, not of goals and action; and women are not
usually inclined to allocate precious, scarce time to the
former. We
tend to zero in on a problem, find *a* solution, and move on to
the
next task. Please note that I say "usually inclined," since the
author of the article in question is an obvious exception.So, how do we get more women to join the Party? Engage in what
my
husband Bart disparagingly calls "busy activities." Like
planning
and successfully executing a campaign to get the San Francisco
police
to stop directing traffic around PG&E construction sites and
focusing
instead on serious crime.
Regards,
Marcy (one of the few token women in this group)
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> An interesting article from Lew Rockwell about where are the
Libertarian Women? It is written by a Libertarian woman and
offers
some insights as to why there aren't very many Libertarian women
and
how that could change.
>
> Libertarian Women - LewRockwell
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> The New Feminism
> by Justine Nicholas
> by Justine Nicholas
> Lately, Wilton Alston and Robert Wicks have been writing about
the
dearth of black libertarians. Which got me to thinkingâ?¦.what
about
us?
> Iâ?Tm talking about female libertarians.
> Of course, any regular reader of Lew Rockwellâ?Ts site (or
anyone
else who keeps abreast of libertarian discourse) is familiar with
such able and articulate women as Karen Kwiatkowski, Becky Akers
and
Karen De Coster. But ask someone who is less familiar with our
dialogues and arguments, and you may not hear any other name but
Ayn
Rand.
> As Alston pointed out, libertarianism â?" or any other
philosophy
or movement that has staying power â?" is ultimately about ideas,
not
personalities. However, a perception still exists that
libertarians
are white and male. This prevents many people from exploring,
much
less understanding, a way of seeing the world that could free
them
from the constraints of conceived preconceptions that they may
not
have even known they had.
> One of those (mis)perceptions is the one that tells us we need
government intervention to help us improve our lives. Nearly
every
woman I know, whatever allegiances she professes, is (mis)guided,
consciously or not, by this notion.
> Itâ?Ts easy to see why so many of us have been conditioned to
accept such an idea. For one thing, feminist movements have
concentrated mainly on political action and legislation to
redress
inequity. For those of us who grew up seeing the passage of Title
Nine and the battle over ERA, the battles always seemed to be
waged
on the steps, or in the halls of, legislative houses.
> In retrospect, it seems inevitable that the struggle for gender
equality played out in such a way. The pioneers of the modern
feminist movement came along in a time of burgeoning yet still
ballooning government. As a result, women like me, who came along
a
generation or two after Gloria Steinem and her cohorts, saw no
other
models for calling attention to, and changing, our situation.
> At that time, there were very few women in powerful positions
in
business or most professions. And, female proprietorship was
concentrated in "womenâ?Ts" businesses, such as those that
supplied
household and beauty products. No matter how smart or hard-
working
you are, youâ?Tre much more likely to climb the ladder and
achieve
the level of success and prosperity you want if thereâ?Ts a
network
of people whose circumstances are similar to yours. Such a circle
of
friends, so to speak, was nearly non-existent in the business and
professional worlds of that time.
> In such a context, perhaps it makes sense that the first modern
feminists turned their attention to the political and legislative
arenas. They, like nearly everyone else, understood the world in
terms of the boundaries inherent in such a framework. Thus,
neither
they nor anyone else couldâ?Tve had the foresight to see that
making
the government their champion and protector would ultimately
ghettoize them.
> To comply with legislation, companies and other organizations
hired
many women for low- and lower-middle-level positions from which
they
were never promoted. Consequently, women still donâ?Tt have
anything
like the "old boyâ?Ts network" to help them advance.
> As the political and legal landscape Iâ?Tve described was
taking
shape, a few companies decided, on their own accord, to adapt
more
female-friendly policies such as child care leave. They realized
that
by excluding "the 51% minority," they were denying themselves
some
very valuable workers. What smart executive doesnâ?Tt want the
best
and brightest people available working with, or for, him or her?
Eventually, I think, most companies would have had to come to
such a
realization, for the growth in areas such as high technology
would
outpace universitiesâ?T ability to turn out qualified male
graduates.
> What we ended up with, instead, were lots of companies
hiring "token" females and a loss of opportunities for women â?"
particularly poor single mothers â?" to rise out of poverty. The
only
alternative for many of them, under the circumstances Iâ?Tve
described, is government handouts. And, as weâ?Tve seen, itâ?Ts
hard
to devise a better way to keep people "in their place."
> Another way governments keep people in their thrall is through
war.
The mediaâ?Ts talking heads can prattle on all they want about
mommies in the Marines, but the fact of the matter is that those
who
profit from war are nearly always men. To my knowledge, companies
that get the fat government contracts â?" Halliburton and
Raytheon
come immediately to mind â?" arenâ?Tt owned or run by women. Why
should we support a system that benefits few, if any of us?
> Even though the Armed Forces have done better than most
companies
in hiring and promoting women, very, very few are admirals or
generals. One reason for this is that the swiftest and surest
route
to promotion has always been combat experience. And, until
recently,
such experience has been nearly non-existent among women in
uniform.
Why should we support war, an institution that has benefited so
few
of us? Even if we put aside the ethical and moral objections many
of
us have to war, this should be sufficient reason for us to not
trust
or depend on war machines, i.e., governments.
> There are many other reasons why more of us should at least
explore
what it means to be a libertarian. But Iâ?Tll mention just one
more.
It was best encapsulated in a bumper sticker one of my professors
affixed to her Beetle. (That really dates me, doesnâ?Tt it?) It
read:
Keep Your Laws Off My Body.
> The whole controversy over abortion has turned into a sad and
sometimes lurid spectacle of women demanding that legislators
give us
the right to choose an abortion or to allow us more access to
information that would enable us to make better choices about our
health care.
> The fact of the matter is that legislators (Even today, most
are
still male.) wouldnâ?Tt have such power over us if governments
didnâ?Tt gain the wherewithal to pass or abolish laws regulating
our
private lives. They wouldnâ?Tt be able to exert such control over
us
if they didnâ?Tt have the symbiotic relationships that they have
with
the medical establishment.
> We have given governments the authority to decide what sort of
medical care we need, and to regulate the administration of it.
This
it almost always does badly. The consequences are even more dire
for
women because we live longer than men and need more continuous
medical care. Men tend to be struck by ailments that kill them
quickly; we tend to have problems that hang on as we hang on.
> And I wonâ?Tt get into how the government has kept women needy
and
dependent through its mismanagement of â?" and promotion of
outright
fraud in â?" the psychiatric professions. That would require
another
article unto itself. All Iâ?Tll say is that many women have been
mired in dependence on government programs because of government-
enabled quackery in this area. The only ones who profit are
program
administrators and pharmaceutical company executives.
> Thinking inside the box of the governmental-military-industrial
complex ultimately makes us dependent upon, and thus subservient
to,
men. That is the reason why I have been encouraging women I know
to
become more familiar with the shared values of, and disagreements
among, libertarians.
> That is also why I â?" and other libertarians â?" have no use
for
those who try to tell us that we donâ?Tt need welfare, we need a
man.
We donâ?Tt need either. But if I had to choose between having one
or
the other between my sheets, with me, guess which one Iâ?Td pick.
> I want the freedom to make that choice, or to pick something
else.
Richard,
Since culture is based in biology, it's a fair assumption that it's fundamentally biological.
Best, Michael
Re causes for the loss of freedom since 1920, in addition to global
warming and women's suffrage, there was also that period of 10 years
or so in which the Federal Government (along with Western
governments worldwide) was busy "fixing" the effects of the Great
Depression.
Add to that the fact that one of the states providing women's
suffrage well before (c. 1865) the onset of the 19th amendment was
Wyoming, not what I would call a "liberal" state, and the
explanation just has to be a lot more complex.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry"
<amarcyb@...> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Actually, our gradual loss of freedom has to do with global
warming.