I could be 100% wrong on this and not be suprised at all, I have done no research or anything, all this just came from a thought that popped in my head today.
How plausable is it that governments screw really bad with sort of a natural social fabric regarding the relationships of men and women. I think it is realitvly safe to say (I’m honestly not trying to be sexist) that women are driven to look for security and protection. When a government forms it offers just that.
Have governments malicously (or even naively) tried to appeal to women? Is government offering protection (especially nowadays social and economic) kind of like a replacement for men? Since women had the right to vote in our wonderful democracy has the role of govt alterd significantly? Does this offer kind of an easy way for men to provide “protection” for women and make them more appealing? Is my thought just a bum idea or trivial at best? Are broken homes more common in more democratic forms of government/ more socialistic forms?
I don’t know, I find this line of thought pretty interesting, so many questions.
Please note: I honestly am not attacking women I am just concerned of that seductive, addictive opiate that is the government and more specificly that is democracy
It has been empirically verified that the female vote has been an essential factor in the growth of government, esp. with female labor unions and such. I recall reading an article somewhere on this.
Firstly that it is undeniably true that women vote more conservatively than men. Since they got the vote they always have done. So it seems unlikely, given that they vote more conservatively, that they have been more culpable for the growth of the state than men.
Secondly, I think you are entirely wrong in summing up female psychology as
Is that in any way more true of women than of men? Anarcho-capitalism has always found it hardest to convince people of its benefits with regards to security - and who have been these “people”, the opponents of anarchy? Mainly men.
There are bits and pieces from Hans Herman Hoppe, but I believe you are right. I would put it this way, that democracy tends to be femine and most everything else tend to be male.
He holds that the dominant position proves that men should be dominant
But at the same time holds that the state’s omnipresence in no way proves its right
It’s one of his worst pieces of work
I am in no way in favour of legislation to “equalise” between sexes or any of that bullshit. But it smacks of blatant chauvinism and misogyny. Oh yeah, blame it on women - it was their fault.
Men and woman are different based on sex. Hate to put it this way, but here I go. Because woman have a choice to have all the joy and blessings that come along with having children, some/most irrevocably choose to dedicate a good proportion of there lives to this vocation. Since many choose to live this way, they simply do not have the time or energy to focus on being as good at something as a man, so income tends to be “lower”.
Also, since woman, (without a welfare state to provide daycare) raise there own children, there preferences tend to revolve around there children instead of other activities than men.
Ok, so here is my theory.
Men are dominant in the area of of business, work and, ick “politics”.
Woman are dominant with there children, cooking, cleaning. Basically anything associated with raising children. The two seperated by fact of sex tend to be driven to different goals.
Maybe you should try harder. The idea that totalitarianism, lust for power and all other political niceties are related to women seeking ‘security’ is a joke. At the same time it is the kind of thing some people want to hear…So to them it ‘makes sense’…
And even assuming it is true, I think it would be fallacious to argue that conservatives do not enlarge the state, or are not as active in doing so as liberals are. Both seek to enlarge and shrink the state (generally speaking) in their own respective areas. However, the best way to accomplish this, is for both of them to agree to let the other to expand the state in his interested area. Hence why democracy has been so effective at expanding the state.
Independence is a masculine trait. So writ large, libertarianism is a struggle against the feminization of society.
Also, men build hierarchies; women build families. Hierarchies enable men to de-personalize rank so labor can be subdivided without things degenerating into personal conflicts over status. Women want everybody taken care of and for us all to get along: social democracy. What’s great for a family is dystopic for a society.
And of course, women are highly status-obsessed. A feminized society will tend towards a few politically-connected alpha peacocks with a female harem, a bunch of beta workerbee men competing to see who can be more obsequious, and the females’ gamma hanger-ons, i.e., their homosexual male friends. Big Man society, like Kenya or southside Chicago. Or the Clinton White House.
This is also what is behind the myth of female prudery. We are taught that normal male sexuality is this raging force that would destroy everything if left unchecked so we need all these gender-specific laws so women can work in inherently male settings and homosexual men can hold a Pride festival without being driven out of town. Now, this archetype may be true to some extent, as with the promiscuous and predatory culture of urban black men. But note that this type of behavior is particularly incentivized by the existence of the feminine welfare state. Without welfare, these tomcats would have to acquire marketable skills and demonstrate paternal instincts in order to attract breeding partners. So in fact, it is female sexuality which requires channeling into sustainable outlets as otherwise being more potentially destructive.
Men and women both have their reasons for enlarging the state.
But here is why libertarians should embrace women’s lib: the traditional submissive status of women at home is what leads them to embrace strong government. That conciliatory “let’s all get along” attitude characteristic of socialism is reflective of the woman’s role in the traditional household, where she is expected to put aside her own desires in order to satisfy others (her husband, her children).
Independent women able to build their own careers and exploit opportunities in business are more likely to understand and support the principles behind the free market.
Again, that is the maternal instinct, and it is manifest regardless of whether you are talking about a housewife or about a female partner in a law firm. There is also the female obsession with status, which is why women hate working for other women. They’ll work for men first. Men, so long as they don’t feel economically threatened, are perfectly content to work for women because they adopt hierarchy: they have their niche and can de-personalize rank, so working for a woman (or a jerk, or whoever) does not become a personal affront.
No because again, under the free market you get hierarchies so labor can be subdivided without everything degenerating into squabbles over status. Women will sacrifice the overriding mission of profit for the enterprise for status for themselves. Or they’ll try to level everything so that nobody has status, i.e., democracy.
Biology trumps ideology. Always has and always will.
Because woman have a choice to have all the joy and blessings that come along with having children, some/most irrevocably choose to dedicate a good proportion of there lives to this vocation. Since many choose to live this way, they simply do not have the time or energy to focus on being as good at something as a man, so income tends to be “lower”.