![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archerships* Why are there so few libertarian women? Hypothesis: women have evolved to be much more risk averse than men. If a village of 100 men and 100 women loses 99 of the men, the women can theoretically still have almost the same number of children as in the village with a 100 men. (Plus one happy, if exhausted, guy). A village that loses 99 of it's women however, will be wiped out. Men, to put it bluntly, are expendable. In much of human evolutionary history, polygamy was common, with the strong man of the tribe getting most of the mating opportunities. Lower status men didn't have much of chance anyway, so being open to taking high risks didn't have much evolutionary downside. And occasionally, taking risks, doing something different, would pay off. "They all laughed at my flint rocks, well...."
Women, on the other hand, can generally find a mate (albeit maybe not the one they would prefer), no matter their status. Therefore, there was little evolutionary pay off for taking risks, or going "outside the herd".
* Why are there fewer physically attractive libertarians than one would expect by sampling from the general population?
Hypothesis: According to a paper in Science I read some time ago, a disproportionate number of professional and Olympic athletes are born early in the year. The authors hypothesized that although athletic ability is distributed equally in children born throught the year, children born early tend to be the oldest kids in class. This gives them a significant competitive advantage when competing in sports as children, as 6 months can make abig difference in strength, height, and speed. As a result, they're rewarded by physical competition, and tend to continue, whereas children born later in the year must be much more persistent and talented.
Similarly, physically attractive people are rewarded by being social -- dating, cheerleading, hanging out with friends. They don't have time to read a lot, nor do they have much incentive for pursuing activities their friends regard as "weird".
Unattractive children are not particularly rewarded for being social. Potential dates reject them, and if they're sufficiently unpopular, no one wants to be associated with them. For nascent libertarians, since there was little pay off in the mating game in high school, they lost themselves in books. Eventually, they came across Rand, or maybe Rothbard, or Friedman. Resources that would've otherwise gone into making themselves more attractive (grooming skills, sense of humor, nice clothing, weight maintenance, athleticism) went into activities that didn't depend on appearance.
* Why do so many libertarian women come from crappy childhoods (divorce, psychological/sexual/physical abuse)?
Hypothesis #1: Libertarian women read to escape from crappy childhood experiences. Reading, in turn, led to Rand. Hypothesis #2: crappy childhood led them to question traditional social mores (marriage, family) which in turn led to questioning political and economic mores. Hypothesis #3: wanted to escape crappy environment, so started working at a young age. Vowed never to be in dependent position again, and are skeptical of institutions that encourage dependence.
Women, on the other hand, can generally find a mate (albeit maybe not the one they would prefer), no matter their status. Therefore, there was little evolutionary pay off for taking risks, or going "outside the herd".
* Why are there fewer physically attractive libertarians than one would expect by sampling from the general population?
Hypothesis: According to a paper in Science I read some time ago, a disproportionate number of professional and Olympic athletes are born early in the year. The authors hypothesized that although athletic ability is distributed equally in children born throught the year, children born early tend to be the oldest kids in class. This gives them a significant competitive advantage when competing in sports as children, as 6 months can make abig difference in strength, height, and speed. As a result, they're rewarded by physical competition, and tend to continue, whereas children born later in the year must be much more persistent and talented.
Similarly, physically attractive people are rewarded by being social -- dating, cheerleading, hanging out with friends. They don't have time to read a lot, nor do they have much incentive for pursuing activities their friends regard as "weird".
Unattractive children are not particularly rewarded for being social. Potential dates reject them, and if they're sufficiently unpopular, no one wants to be associated with them. For nascent libertarians, since there was little pay off in the mating game in high school, they lost themselves in books. Eventually, they came across Rand, or maybe Rothbard, or Friedman. Resources that would've otherwise gone into making themselves more attractive (grooming skills, sense of humor, nice clothing, weight maintenance, athleticism) went into activities that didn't depend on appearance.
* Why do so many libertarian women come from crappy childhoods (divorce, psychological/sexual/physical abuse)?
Hypothesis #1: Libertarian women read to escape from crappy childhood experiences. Reading, in turn, led to Rand. Hypothesis #2: crappy childhood led them to question traditional social mores (marriage, family) which in turn led to questioning political and economic mores. Hypothesis #3: wanted to escape crappy environment, so started working at a young age. Vowed never to be in dependent position again, and are skeptical of institutions that encourage dependence.
easier explanation for libertarian women
Date: 2003-07-25 07:10 pm (UTC)Women are nurturing.
==
If you look at the far left (participation in which is as "risky" as participation in the far right), there are plenty of women.
So I don't think "risk-taking" is the issue.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:25 pm (UTC)You're right--the Greens/Socialists do seem to have higher female:male ratios. It'd be fascinating to see some hard data on the issue.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:23 pm (UTC)EDIT: male:female
Date: 2003-07-25 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:24 pm (UTC)As one of those, I'd like to suggest you look back to your first point. We've normalized to a higher level of risk than most women with happy/stable childhoods, so that something as simple as less government isn't that threatening.
Also, those events lead one to be distrustful of authority. What is government but authority?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:30 pm (UTC)I'm not sure I see exactly how being libertarian is "risky" so I'll skip that one for the time being.
I turned to books to escape the fact that I was an antisocial unattractive child. That trend continued all the way up until college. At which point the ugly duckling happy ending happened. On the other hand, I had a near-idyllic childhood/happy family - but we were very poor and my mother instilled in me a solid work ethic. I worked from the time I was 15 on. She also encouraged me not to become dependent on others. It was the sci-fi that I read that started me down the path to semi-anti-institutionalism. I didn't read Rand until 2001. But had I read it sooner, I think I'd have changed my political views sooner.
So, I'm a mix.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:58 pm (UTC)In our evolutionary past, "fitting in" was often a good survival strategy. Similar to the reasons cows like to herd--there's strength in numbers.
If you questioned the chief, or the tribal witch doctor, or the social mores of your peers, you risked ostracization. Frequently, ostracization meant death.
In the current context, libertarianism isn't particularly risky, per se. Although it's gaining increasing popularity, it's still regarded as a weird, nutty political philosophy by many. So even though being a libertarian probably isn't going to hurt you in our current environmental context, going against the grain politically is still going to feel risky.
I turned to books to escape the fact that I was an antisocial unattractive child.
Fascinating. You seem very attractive and outgoing now. What caused the "ugly duckling" transformation?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 08:04 pm (UTC)I was accepted into the six week NC Governor's School program the summer between 11th and 12th grades. It was the second biggest life-changing event of my life to date at that point. I found out how much I enjoyed being amongst other intelligent people and just learning. And when I got back, my mother treated me to a makeover. It was like one of those cheesy 80s movies. I got my braces off, got my hair styled beautifully, learned to apply makeup and started paying attention to how I dressed. I started my senior year as a very different girl. And the independence I'd gained from growing up not needing the acceptance of other people was important too. Then I started college, figured out the world was a much bigger place than I ever realized, and I tried to grow to fit it. Voila.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 06:30 pm (UTC)Like you, although my parents were very poor, I remember my family life being very happy. For example, My Mom was embarrassed because my shoes were in such bad shape that by the time I got back from a boy scout camping trip, they were falling off my feet and I had to bind them with twine. Mom was very interested in "back to the land" type things, like growing your own food, raising animals, building your own house, etc. They built two houses from scratch, remodelled several others. They hated accepting help from anyone. They were also quite the loners--I don't remember them having anyone but close family members over for dinner. (Though they are both active in their church).
But they were always very affectionate with us, and always supported us, no matter what we wanted to do, so long as it was ethical.
I wasn't picked on much, but neither did I have many close friends. Nor did I start dating much until an embarrassingly late point in my life. Mostly my isolation was self-imposed though, as I found most of things that my high school peers seemed to be interested in dreadfully boring (basketball and football are very big in Jerome, ID).
It's interesting that you blossomed after the NC Governor's program. I went to National Youth Science Camp between my 12th grade and first year of college. It was the most fun experience of my life so far--lot's of smart, geeky kids camping out in the wilderness of West Virginia. Among other things, they flew in scientists to speak to us about their fields. Hans Moravec was one of them. He had just written his book "Mind Children", and he gave a lecture on how humans would eventually evolve into superintelligent robots--it has had a profound impact on my life. It was also during that camp that I realized, during a late night conversation with some of the other campers, that one could be an ethical person without believing in God. At the end, they even took us to Washington, D.C. to see Les Miserables.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:37 pm (UTC)Just so you know, it has not been my experience that libertarian-ish cuties are hard to find. Quite the contrary.
Maybe you're just not looking in the right places.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 08:11 pm (UTC)Yes, you're experience is different than mine. I attended a variety of groups and events in the Bay Area that I thought would appeal to the libertarian minded female cutie. I met a few libertarian cuties, but not many. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. Care to share any suggestions?
About crappy childhooded women becoming Libertarians...
Date: 2003-07-25 07:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 11:38 pm (UTC)What's your perception of libertarian men? Have you noticed in common quirks?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 09:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 09:23 am (UTC)Hmmmm
Date: 2003-07-25 08:38 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmmm
Date: 2003-07-25 09:01 pm (UTC)I have not observed libertarian women to have more troubled backgrounds. Perhaps, crasch, you're underestimating the amount of abuse women in the general population have suffered? If the women you know well enough to know their backstories are mostly libertarian, perhaps that's biasing your perception.
One thing I have noticed is that whenever I meet a libertarian woman, I nearly always want to know her better, whereas a much lower percentage of libertarian men intrigue me as potential friends. Of course, the male-female ratio is part of that (not wanting to say "let's be friends" all the time), but I think it goes beyond that.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 09:11 pm (UTC)Could be. I'm not the most sociable person, so the number of women who I know well is fairly small.
...but I think it goes beyond that.
Why do you think you find libertarian men less intriguing as potential friends, aside from a desire to forgo fending off possible romantic overtures?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 09:24 pm (UTC)I think a higher percentage of libertarian men are, frankly, creeps. Some seem to enjoy having unpopular views for the sole purpose of grandstanding and being obnoxious. As an example, I met a couple of guys at IHS who were interning at Cato who insisted on bringing up at every turn that infanticide should be legal.
Why DO that? I suppose a person could do that for the purpose of clarifying certain principles or whatever, but the impression they gave was, "I adopted this creed because I enjoy shocking everyone. Watch me poke people with my ideological stick!"
This phenomena occurs all over the political spectrum, and it can't be exclusive to men, but it does seem to be more common among men.
You know....
Date: 2003-07-25 10:39 pm (UTC)Of course, there are some wonderful (and adorable) LP males, including my husband, and
Also, I've noticed that a lot of the Libertarian guys I've met are vehemently anti-child. What's with that? Just more anti-social shock stuff?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 11:27 pm (UTC)I don't know where the anti-child attitude comes from. Maybe Rand? She didn't exactly celebrate motherhood. Anti-child attitudes seem to be more common among libertarian women than the genpop, as well.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 11:20 pm (UTC)Yeah, there are some libertarian creeps, no question. And a number of libertarian guys need to work on making themselves more attractive -- dress nicely, work out, clean up personal hygiene, get good jobs, move out of parent's basement, etc.
What percentage of libertarian guys would you classify as "creeps?"
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 11:29 pm (UTC)I don't mind the socially inept but it's rare I would go out of my way to befriend one. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy and comfortable at most libertarian events. My comment was really more about the general greatness of libertarian women, who nearly all seem to be strong and smart and full of love for life.
I always get the sense that the few women are there because of their genuine passion for liberty, while a fair number of the men just don't have anything else to do.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 11:23 pm (UTC)[He says typing on his computer alone on a Saturday night.]
no subject
Date: 2003-09-15 09:19 am (UTC)I'm an INTJ. ;)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-25 09:35 pm (UTC)There are no doubt beautiful lib women, and lib women who had great childhoods, as well as women who've never read Rand who came to the ideas via an entirely different route (such as yours). Speaking of which, what about your juvenile corrections/treatment work caused you to become a libertarian?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 03:41 pm (UTC)Let's put it this way. There are many who say that Russia was better under communism because less people fell through the cracks than do today. Even if this were true (it isn't) I would prefer today's situation. Simmilarly, it can be said that South Africa was in better shape under the clever guidance of its pale masters 15 years ago. Most liberals (even classical ones) would never admit to this. Women often seem more interested in sounding nice than being right.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 05:57 pm (UTC)Government encourages risk taking behaviours through subsidizing downside costs-- defraying those costs disproportionately to risk averse people like me.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 10:59 pm (UTC)You know that, and I know that, but does the average woman know that? You have some economics training as I recall.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-27 11:51 am (UTC)Perhaps my parents over-emphasized the golden rule. I knew I hated experiencing the externalities associated with other's poor planning, assumed this was not a trait unique to me, and behaved accordingly.
Of course I didn't associate this with government at first-- it was just a matter of politeness.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 09:16 pm (UTC)And I agree with whoever said that the really weirdo Libertarian guys scare off the women. I've seen more than my fair share of the weirdos.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 11:01 pm (UTC)How did you become interested in libertarianism?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-26 11:03 pm (UTC)How did your parents become interested in it?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-27 09:28 pm (UTC)it just makes so much damn sense to be libertarian.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-27 04:25 am (UTC)With the situation reversed, the theory still holds, re: your observation about the high proportion of women in Green, Socialist, or related parties. I've never been to a meeting of any of those party members, but in the last voter's pamphlet I remember, the Green party had a near 50/50 gender balance in their candidates, which is probably the highest female-candidate population of any political party.
My "proof" for this is, wierdly enough, speech patterns. In all the cultural and linguistic reading I've done, I've generally seen that women use more touchy-feely language (more "hedge words" like probably, maybe, "what I think", more conversation-enabling phrases such as "right", "how's that?" and "tell me more about ***"). Men, on the other hand, do not engage in this linguistic behavior. In other words, women's conversational behavior is more oriented towards harmony and interaction, while men's behavior is more oriented towards asserting an opinion and obtaining or giving factual information. You could probably draw a parallel here to politics, and say that women tend to lean more towards the "acceptable" than the "correct". Again, I doubt that this is biologically determined; just what little boys and girls are taught to say.
Also, about the "unattractive Libertarians" thing- I think it's more that since mainstream society functions on appearances, those who were unattractive (either by poor self-care or uncontrollable factors) felt disenfranchised by mainstream society and politics and were thereby motivated to seek out other systems of government- possibly one that would be less regulatory of one's personal life, appearance, hygeine, etc. I don't know that it's necessarily that they're more well-read or more intelligent. I've met many intelligent, well-read people who have bought in to mainstream society and fully realize that it functions on superficial appearances, and that that's inherently unfair, but since they are at least passably atrractive and therefore can function within the system, they accept it as just "the way things are".
no subject
Date: 2003-07-27 09:47 am (UTC)Same with family-- intact, traditional families produce children who are more likely to toe the line because they've seen that WORK at home in the past.
Women were nurtured more as children (in traditional families) and learn to nurture and repair, not question and redesign. And female children have a particular bond with the traditional father-- who "built" the family-- so have to feel a real break there in order to buck tradition. Unless the father is a particularly wise and intelligent man who teaches his daughters to question authority... including his own... a rare thing indeed :) :)