Written by Darrell Anderson.
Allison Brown wrote a thoughtful piece discussing ideas why there appears to be few liberty-minded women. Claire Wolfe noticed Allison’s commentary, and added that of the few libertarian women she knows, most tend to be hardcore and radical about their liberty and she wondered why. Dakota James also once addressed the question of libertarian women.
Perhaps there is an answer for these women, although I cite no psychological or sociological experts and I make no appeal to anything other than personal observation.
Allison noticed several unique differences between men and women. One of the differences Dakota noticed was that most libertarian men are confident, but for some men that confidence grows into arrogance and she viewed such arrogance as potentially confrontational. Women do not like confrontation. As Allison noticed, women are “natural socialists” and “want everyone to share and everyone to get along.” Women enjoy intellectual exchange but not to the point of excessive confrontation. That is, most women seem to be better than men at compromising. Perhaps the reason is women are, by nature, nest builders. Nest builders seek harmony and security. Men, historically the providers and protectors, have learned to be more aggressive and that aggressiveness often tends to threaten a woman’s desire for security.
Perhaps therein lies one reason to explain the general lack of libertarian women. A woman wants security, seeks security, and refrains from environments tending to diminish her sense of security.
Men seek security too but generally tend to be more willing to engage adversaries directly if that security is threatened. Generally, women tend to avoid confrontation.
Perhaps this desire for security explains why Allison admits much warmth for her father. Although her father was entrenched in what today she understands as the political process, he nonetheless performed his role well of being her provider and protector. By fulfilling that role well, Allison felt secure.
This innate desire for security might partially explain why during their turbulent air flight the young woman in the airplane clung to Allison. Although not directly declaring as much, Allison likely would have done the same had she been sitting next to a man in whom she trusted. That desire for security also might explain why Allison received the reactions she did when she shared her story with other women.
Perhaps the desire for security explains why many women more easily tend to embrace statism. Many women tend to see statism as a social function rather than political. Many men are more likely to view statism as a political process instead of a social. Thus, many women embrace statism because they tend to see that process providing a sense of security.
Many men today still accept the traditional role of provider and protector. Providing and protecting is challenging enough without having to engage the political conflicts and illusions of wealth redistribution. Thus, men tend to recognize coerced political systems as legalized theft under the color of law. Possibly, a woman initially does not tend to see wealth redistribution as theft because of her social nature and focus to provide security for her home.
Perhaps a strong desire for security is a primary reason why many women tend to shun men with a passion for liberty of action. Because the political powers-that-be rarely are liberty-minded, in one form or another such passion tends to be confrontational. A woman’s primary concern is for her home — whether married, cohabiting, or living alone. She does not want to deal with confrontational human social processes that diminish her sense of security. She is not wired that way. As with the proverbial mother hen, women always have at least one eye looking for predators who might disrupt the security of her home. That might partially explain why many single women own dogs, prefer dead-bolt locks on their doors, and want to lock the windows before retiring at night.
That desire for security possibly is a primary reason why many couples divorce or separate after a man decides to “buck the system” and live the “outlaw” life. While the man sees his decisions as “the right thing to do” to offset the plunder effects of statism, a woman perceives such a man as disrupting her sense of security. A woman does not want to entertain the idea of the bully tax man depriving her and her family of her home because of her husband’s or lover’s political decisions.
Perhaps this idea about security answers Claire’s question. When a woman fully traverses the challenges of studying statism, she then understands that politics is merely a process of coercively transferring wealth from one class of people to another. By understanding this truth, the woman who travels this journey eventually realizes that political processes will do more to destroy than help her sense of security. Thus, when a woman fully understands the theft that occurs through political systems she sees the security of her home threatened.
With that explanation, Claire’s statement makes sense that “. . . the few women who write [her] often seem as fierce and uncompromising as mother bears fighting for their cubs when they talk about life and liberty.” People who have watched or studied bears know that mother bears are indeed frightful creatures to encounter if cubs are nearby. A mother bear defends her territory and her family “red in tooth and claw.” Perhaps too does a woman who completes the journey to understanding the truth about political systems.
What to do? How can men encourage women to be more thoughtful about the truth of political systems? Can that “100,000 to 1“ ratio be reduced?
The primary thing a man can do who is committed to a relationship is to assure a woman that he always will protect and defend her. This is not a matter of declaring a woman’s inability to defend herself, but an issue of trust. Without that trust no further discussion is likely. That assurance includes any political discussions as well as not engaging in hasty or reactive decisions that will tend to threaten her sense of security. Allison thought that relationships failed when there is no consensus agreement about fundamental issues — security is one of those issues.
When a man illustrates the concept of coerced wealth redistribution, he must explain those differences from the perspective of how free association and voluntary exchange are more beneficial and reciprocating toward providing and maintaining a woman’s desire for security. Men must be prepared to show women how statism discourages voluntary sharing and inhibits rather than encourages everyone from getting along. Through that educational process a man always must remember that the moment a woman perceives the security of her home being threatened, she will bail out of any further discussion.
This also applies to single women. Regardless of their own physical abilities, to one degree or another single women more than likely live in a somewhat heightened state of fear and uncertainty. They fear attack from predators of one form or another. Thus, men need to be aware of a woman’s general desire for security and explain how a single woman would find stronger security in a world void of coercive political systems.
Although there are many elements to the discussion why there are few libertarian women, understanding a woman’s passion for security might explain much. She simply needs to understand her desire for security from a different perspective — a perspective never provided to her by people working in the statist educational system, politics, or general media. Provide her the security she seeks and she will be more inclined to listen to arguments opposing statism.
However, be forewarned that when a woman finally understands the fallacies of statism and the proverbial bell rings in her head, stand clear because you might have just let loose another mother bear who will protect her territory.