Libertarian Julie Borowski vs. the Leftist-Libertarian Thought Police

I know a couple FSPers who have won elections in Keene. Certainly, though, I doubt a lot of the anarchcapitalists or voluntaryists in Keene would support her. There is a lot of diversity in the liberty movement. I think some in Keene would like her to move to Keene.


This is why the affection for labels is so retarded.

Not condemning your post, only making a general point.

I support people who want as much freedom as possible. More the better. A person need not fit my exact view to receive my support, nor must they put forth only efforts of which I approve as helpful to the cause. We're all different and bring something different to the table.

To be so picky and stuck on freedom label vs freedom label is petty, and unbecoming an individualistic mind.

Julie is a freedom lover.
 
That video was like watching some of the random thoughts that go through my mind being acted out right in front of me. Even down to that same exact magazine that I rolled my eyes at, standing in line at the grocery store a few days ago.
 
Uh, maybe it's too late at night, but Woods and Borowski aren't really making a lot of sense here (other than pointing out shallow popular culture). What exactly is the point? Can someone summarize?

Does Woods dispute the Myers/Briggs point, or does he agree?
 
Last edited:
Tom and Julie are right. Women's brains simply are wired differently, and hence, are less susceptible to the argumentation that is generally made on the behalf of libertarianism. There are a lot of emotional arguments to be made for libertarianism, but it seems those are not as...widespread. That is one thing 17th and 18th century radical liberals got correct - use EMOTION to drive home points. We all should be mad as hell that we're getting stolen from through taxation, eminent domain seizures, and seizures through police and courts. Not to mention the TSA... How the fuck! Anyways - you're probably better off using emotional arguments when you're talking to a women, and vice versa for men. Simple physiology.
 
Whats up with her tongue?
bluecandy_zpsc955045b.jpg
 
This is why the affection for labels is so retarded.

Not condemning your post, only making a general point.

I support people who want as much freedom as possible. More the better. A person need not fit my exact view to receive my support, nor must they put forth only efforts of which I approve as helpful to the cause. We're all different and bring something different to the table.

To be so picky and stuck on freedom label vs freedom label is petty, and unbecoming an individualistic mind.

Julie is a freedom lover.

+ rep. To argue over division lines at this point is beyond stupid. Let's at least try to get to the point where it's even relevant first. When and if government gets small, then we can argue over the fine points.
 
OK, this is going to be the most unpopular post in this thread so get ready to flame away!

I think she's mostly correct about pop culture influence on (young) women, but I think she takes it a bit too far with her over-the-top theatrics. I've always found her videos to be somewhat annoying because of that. She could be a huge influence to the women in her peer group, but instead she's taken the approach of ridiculing them over purchasing choices. I think it's understandable that they're turned off by her snarkiness with regard to their desire to be fashionable and attractive (things that have nothing whatsoever to do with one's political views).

Yes, these are superficial concerns that young women tend to have, but that's not going to change anytime soon. And why does it have to? One can be fashion-conscious and libertarian at the same time (seems Julie herself fits that description, no?) IMO, she should use her platform to find common ground with those in her peer group rather than deriding them over petty shopping habits.

I love Tom Woods and I deeply respect his opinion, so I really wanted to see his point about this. And I DO think Tom (and Julie) have a point, and Julie is NOT WRONG....just that I think she should be taking a different approach to encourage women in her peer group to join the liberty movement. Ridiculing people for choices they make that have nothing to do with politics rarely gets that job done.
 
Last edited:
Bob Murphy weighs in...

Oh wow, this issue is exploding. Tom Woods expresses his feelings, and Bryan Caplan weighs in. In case you haven’t seen it, this is the video that annoyed Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire:

[video=youtube;nASPjBVQkQk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nASPjBVQkQk[/video]

I am going to offer some quick thoughts. But first, a disclaimer: I am not going to keep writing “in general” or “for the most part” or “have a tendency to.” Obviously, this post will be full of sweeping generalizations. Don’t stereotype-shame me in the comments!

==> I rushed to Julie’s defense, not because I care about the particular issues over which others are arguing, but because (a) I’m her “Facebook friend” so I automatically was defensive and (b) I know what a pain it is to make videos like that. If you’ve never done it, you really have no idea. It would take me probably 6 hours to get something approximating the above. Oops, was your iPhone turned on? Well you gotta do it all over, because now there’s a buzzing in the audio. So, knowing how much effort she is putting into these things, and seeing exactly the little details and tricks she uses to build up her fan base, it is crazy when I was reading comments on FB etc. from people making completely asinine “suggestions” that would ensure no one watches her videos again.

==> Julie is cranking out videos that consistently get more than 10k views, and she talks about “the Budget Control Act of 2011″ and “Title IX.” She makes it cool to rip on Republicans for being for “small government” and yet freaking out over defense cuts. If you have never worked in a Think Tank environment, you don’t undersand how important that is. There could be a bunch of people all secretly thinking that, but if a few loudmouths set the tone about “that wuss Obama weakening our national defense!” then they’ll keep quiet. That’s why I am so happy with her video series.

==> The people saying, “I would never send that video to my non-libertarian friends!” are totally missing the point. This video is aimed at LIBERTARIANS. That’s why at the end she says her strategy is “how we win.”

==> If you say, “OK Bob, but then why the rant about the big purse? Why did she put lipstick all over her face? Why doesn’t she just read from cue cards with a stick up her butt?” I refer you again to her Views.

==> Julie is part of a broader trend that delights me. People are making it cool to talk about politics and economics. That’s why I adore Jon Stewart. If you told me in 2000 1998 that a comedian would have a very successful show, largely based on running clips of Fox News and making fun of speeches taken from the Congressional floor, I would have said you were nuts. Just like, if you had told me I’d one day be giving a talk at an event in Nashville with a bunch of musicians who hated the Fed, and where there were 23-year-olds smoking pot in their car beforehand listening to a black guy’s remix of Ron Paul speeches, I would have really thought you were nuts.

==> Right now, for whatever reason, it is cool in our culture to be a progressive. That’s why Matt Damon is being hailed for his anti-fracking movie, whereas Clint Eastwood is mocked for his views. Since libertarians (in our minds) are actually the ones who “know the street” and have the inside scoop on rich guys screwing everybody over, we should be the intellectuals to whom the cool kids turn when they want to learn how the world works. But they don’t trust us right now, because we are boring and out of touch.

==> Having said all that, I actually don’t think this issue–i.e., the need to make libertarianism cool in the popular culture–has much to do with girls not being in the movement. That I think is more explained, by the fact that girls don’t like to argue as much as guys do.

==> Lots of guys like science fiction, and some girls do too. But if I post on my Facebook status, “Who would win in a fight? The Enterprise (Galaxy Class) or a Super Star Destroyer?” it is going to be all guys, except for an occasional girl who makes fun of us for being such dorks. Notice, if I said, “Who could provide the most assistance to a space station with a flu outbreak?” no guy would care. But when I make it about a fight, now we’re interested.

==> So, right now libertarianism as a movement is like my question about the Enterprise vs. the Super Star Destroyer. “Suppose you had a fractional reserve bank versus a 100% reserve bank in a world with no government. Who wins?” Hell yeah, I’m going to make lifelong enemies debating that question. But most girls are going to think, “You guys are dorks.”

==> I think it would be interesting to study Marxism, because there are clearly sectarian squabbles there, but there are a bunch of women in it. So somebody explain that to me. I am quite sure I’m hitting something important above, but it’s not decisive since I can’t explain Marxism.

==> Last point: Say I’m right or wrong, but this is why I “make such an ass” of myself on the Internet. Sometimes I get the impression that certain critics think I got drunk and accidentally posted a video of myself in the bathroom taunting Krugman. Maybe that’s a dumb strategy, or maybe it’s brilliant, but please spare me the lecture, “Bob, don’t you realize that you don’t sound like a stuffy academic? Why would Harvard invite you to guest lecture next year with this video floating around?” Give me a break.
 
Bryan Caplan's article:

Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire have restarted a long-standing debate about the shortage of libertarian women. They make a very fair point: Libertarians should have been friendlier and more respectful to women - and turn over a new leaf forthwith. As I've argued before, this is good general advice: Libertarians should be friendlier and more respectful, period. To quote Mark Twain, "It will gratify some people, and astonish the rest."

Still, while I share Steve and Sarah's recommendations, I'm afraid they're conflating two issues: marketing and social science.

The marketing issue: How can libertarians better sell their ideas to women?

The social science issue: Why is there a shortage of libertarian women?

It's possible that the marketing issue is the answer to the social science issue. Maybe bad marketing fully explains the libertarian gender gap. But then again, maybe not. A person could embrace the perfectly sensible view that libertarians should improve their marketing, yet still doubt that the best marketing in the world would close the gap.

My study of personality psychology makes me one of the doubters. On the popular Myers-Briggs personality test, there is a huge Thinking-Feeling gap between men and women. For men, the breakdown is roughly 60% Thinking, 40% Feeling. For women, the breakdown is roughly 30% Thinking, 70% Feeling.

This Thinking/Feeling disparity explains a lot about gender gaps in college major and occupation. There's every reason to think that this disparity can help explain gender gaps in political and social views.

To make a long story short: Thinking people tend to have "hard heads" and "hard hearts," while Feeling people have "soft heads" and "soft hearts." Unsurprisingly, then, Feeling people tend to hold more anti-market views. I've similarly found strong evidence that males "think more like economists." This gender belief gapincreases with education, consistent with a simple model where male and female students gradually learn more about whatever their personalities incline them to study.

The whole premise "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism," of course, is that we shouldunbundle the hardness of our heads and the hardness of our hearts. Logically speaking, we can combine hard heads and soft hearts. Empirically, though, this combination is rare. And that's why Bleeding Heart Libertarians have their work cut out for them. If you're trying to sell libertarianism to Feeling people, "hard head, soft heart" ideas are more persuasive than "hard head, hard heart" ideas. But the libertarian remains at an inherent disadvantage against intellectual rivals pedaling "soft head, soft heart" ideas.

Marketing matters. Libertarians can and should better market their ideas to women (and people, for that matter). But marketing can only do so much. Women really are more Feeling than men, and selling libertarianism to people with Feeling personalities is inherently difficult.

Please don't be angry at me, I am only a messenger.
I think he gets it right....and without the snark.
 
Last edited:
I see a lot of name-callling going on in this article. I think Tom has to be careful of accusing the other side of being "Banishers". I have honestly always found a lot of "banishment" behavior emanating from the rightist libertarian wing. If a libertarian doesn't extol the virtues of capitalism, does think that women do encounter difficulties in mainstream society and expected familial roles based on sex, or -gasp- even dares to disagree with Ron Paul, I think he or she tends to be shouted down amongst anarcho-capitalist or minarchist circles.

The main critique that feminist libertarians have is that right-libertarians tend to ignore specific difficulties that women face just for the sake of proclaiming that everyone's rights are being infringed upon. While it is true that both men and women are being deprived of liberty, I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the magnitude of this deprivation has been the same. Many women who are not libertarians indeed feel differently from what someone like Julie or Tom would argue.

I don't see how Julie expects to be successful converting women when she makes the same arguments that conservatives do in order to shut out women from a message of more liberty for all. I think her video amounts to patting male and rightist libertarians on the back, chalking women's lack of response up to physiological differences between the two sexes, when it is in fact true that many women in this movement are treated in a sub-par manner. I think every female libertarian can tell a "creepertarian" story... in fact, there are plenty of anecdotes to be had from this topic! The height of irony.

For example, the view that "Women buy the propaganda that the state is their daddy and that it will keep them safe. The state uses their biology against them" (an actual quote from someone on Facebook responding to the same article Tom is responding to) is patently insulting and does more to drive off women from this movement than "biological differences" ever could. It smacks of oversimplification, which is what a lot of libertarians do when forced to answer the tough questions about capitalism, race/gender relations, and even the nature of authority itself in a few cases.

I also find it mildly amusing how Caplan is using the Meyers-Briggs Test to confirm his views. That test is nothing more than pop psychology, and it is notoriously shoddy in methodology and a whole bunch of other things. It really should not be used for any serious psychological analysis. Some sources even fully categorize it as pseudoscience.
 
True, but I think she's spot on, women are more likely to care about what is fashionable, trendy, and popular with other women. Whether this is the result of some innate difference between the sexes, or the result of conditioning and years of targeted marketing, is beside the point... There are few libertarian examples in pop culture and libertarianism is the last thing that is trendy with women. Even conservatism isn't trendy. Whereas progressive causes are very popular. There are progressive celebrities in every aspect of popular culture.

Anyway I think her video is hilarious. She obviously touched a nerve with her critics.

Right! That's why the Marxists targeted women for their support base: CULTURAL MARXISM.
 
Right! That's why the Marxists targeted women for their support base: CULTURAL MARXISM.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not necessarily because women are more emotional decision makers (men clearly behave this way also, although maybe about very different things), or that we don't like to debate/argue as much as men (I think we definitely do, but about very different stuff perhaps....about scifi series generally no, about the latest Taylor Swift video, Twilight movie, or latest diet craze or child care trend, yep). What I think Julie is getting at is that progressive causes are popular and women like fitting in with their (female) friends, etc. Progressive celebrities and causes are associated with all sorts of things women like....progressive celebrities sell us fashion, makeup, handbags, music, tv dramas, movies, magazines, shoes, etc... Stuff women like. I see it everywhere. So these issues become socially acceptable for women, the cause goes on their radar, and they start chatting with friends about it. Why do think there was such a nasty twitter backlash at Kelly Clarkson just for expressing mild admiration for Ron Paul?

Maybe the problem is that there are too many male libertarians trying to make it popular through stuff men like, scifi novels, etc...and the female libertarians we do have aren't helping much, because we are attracted to the same interests already. Write a novel like Twilight that would be popular with women, and maybe we'd be getting somewhere... Lol.
 
Last edited:
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:
 
OK, here's a criticism for the men here, and for all men in general. You guys may not make decisions based on emotions, as many women do. But at times, all of you CAN be bamboozled when sex appeal is used as a marketing tool. Hence, the drooling over Julie. :rolleyes:
Tell me about it, I work for a cellular provider in my area, and I have to deal with upset males who purchased phones/plans from a pair of breasts and a flirtatious attitude everyday. (Please ladies of RPF, don't chew my head off, the girls I work with are very open about how they go about their sales practices, I'm not dramatizing.) I'm not saying every female that works for my company is like that, but most of them are, because it works unfortunately. It drives me up a wall because it may mean numbers now, but it causes so many headaches in the end. But, as the saying goes 'sex sells'.
 
Back
Top