Libertarian Women Demonstrate Why The Liberty Movement Has A Woman Problem

[![]( "Bleh")](
Girl in middle looks like Molly Ringwald.
On Tuesday July 23rd, a day which will live in infamy, published a piece by edgytarian [Fred Reed](, titled “*Why Sexual Integration Is A Bad Idea*.” In response to Reed’s work, three “libertarian feminists” penned an [amusing retort](; amusing, because their collective hissy-fit does more to support Reed’s position than his own work (*which I didn’t read*). This humble article will be the type of response I do not expect to be see published on either LRC or Fred’s blog. I’ll get around to explaining why I believe this to be the case. First things first, I must dissect the choicer bits of Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian’s calumnious response to Reed, a concerted effort by three women to promote individuality and feminism (*lol*). **I.** Their article begins by framing Reed as the proper and typical object of modern female hate: > “[Reed] begins with what are evidently intended to be amusing anecdotes — one of which informs the reader that the inclusion of women absolutely ruined the National Press Club, an establishment in which women should apparently be rendered silent and nude in oil paint and hung above the bar.” …Of course, the authors are astute enough to rely on [straw](, avoiding entirely the anathematized and common-sense notion that the National Press Club, or any association with prerequisites for membership, could ever be negatively-impacted by the removal of it’s standards. Bonus points for those of you who check the Press Club website and realize that the narrative the NPC panders today is directed towards the very same demographic these libertarian authors pander to. Coincidence, I am sure.
[![Wendy Davis would do a lot more good shutting the fuck up.](,w_300/v1428561820/gay_u4nizy.png)](
I prefer the silent oil painting.
With their diatribe thus framed, the three move on to the subject of the West’s crumbling educational system, particularly it’s newly-emerging (*and unnatural*) gender inequalities: girls are showing more success in the system than boys. The three make the following statement: > “Research shows that our schools are “average” by world standards when it comes to language and science, and below average in math. *And, yes, girls have pulled ahead academically*.” Did you catch that? They completely miss that their own statement suggests girls are only pulling ahead when the academic mean is degraded, when standards fall. It’s awesome when your ideological opposition accidentally makes your point for you. Their solution for the “complicated” problem of a culture systematically lowering the bar? *Take your boys out of government schools.* These three suggest this is an obvious solution, one Reed is too bigoted to realize. > “Instead, he blames everything on women: Women don’t like to study matters of substance. Women focus too much on *polite behavior*. Women “*don’t want boys in the schools anyway.*” (Yes, that really is a direct quote.)” Funny, these women are not paying attention to the substantive matter of a crumbling education. Instead, they focus on Reed’s impolite remarks. They also kinda argued that boys should leave the system. Kinda hard to argue an opponent’s assertion is unfounded when you make every single assertion in your own retort. C’mon ladies, you’re making this too easy for me; like, [libertarian feminist]( easy. [![drivel](]( In the next paragraph, one of the three writers finally remembers they should at some point attempt an actual libertarian argument. > “His arguments are not only grossly unreasonable, but they’re strongly anti-individualist. *We don’t need [to] remove women from our schools; we need to remove the government — or, failing that, our children.*“ Of course, any consistent libertarian argument is quickly aborted by the feminist framing. This is why Fred Reed is called anti-individualist for arguing that “women” as a group mentality can somehow infringe upon one’s “individuality.” Kinda like how these three like-minded women infringe upon Reed’s own opinion by calling it “anti-individualistic.” > “[Reed] claims that resegregation is desirable at the level of the university as well as in primary education. But for whom? At what point has separate but equal ever actually worked in practice?” …Says the “libertarian” feminist. I am seriously having a difficult time holding all of these lols. It’s quite obvious to me and any objective reader that the authors desire *separation and equality*, except whenever these ideals conflict with their vagina. Which means they ultimately desire *hedonistic pleasure*. In this regard at least, women prove to be fantastic libertarians… Until they remember that they are women. > “[Reed] likewise wants us to believe men who go to college find themselves in a sea of “hostile feminism.” Meanwhile, everyone from the New York Times to the Washington Post has written about how feminism has brought to college the “hookup culture,” a.k.a. easy sex. We can debate the merits of easy drunken hookups, but I think we can agree that they really cannot be counted as hostility to men.” LOL, when has feminism ever NOT been about easy poon? Of course, leave it to possessors of said easy poon to completely misunderstand the “hostility” such filth poses to those who would aspire to something more meaningful than PUA activity. Leave it to the modern sociology to reduce everything to their own narcissism. Leave it to these three to argue that nothing could be their fault, and that those (*men*) who cannot deal with the current system should just leave; it worked for Galt. Leave it to those who love nothing to make a “love it or leave it” argument, and completely miss the irony. The authors then move into the topic of *rape*, the only doctrinally-accepted means of regulating our culture’s hedonism. That any man would dare question the validity of promiscuous women having valid arguments against being treated like meat is heresy most foul: > “Sexual assault may not be a concern for Reed, but that does not justify his arguments against a voluntary, peaceful movement against violence — a libertarian cause if there ever was one.” Reality does all the argument against the incoherent nonsense ideal of peaceful, moral debauchery. Just give it some time, ladies; reality will catch up to you eventually. [![lady](,w_300/v1428562153/lady_afp36c.jpg)]( These women move on to collectively criticize Reed’s “collectivist mindset” regarding the armed services, particularly that women are largely unfit to serve in the front lines. > “It is absurd to generalize all women as physically weak.” It is absurd to ignore the realities of biological differences; *lrn2bellcurve*. It is also absurd to make absolute the statement that *generally* all women are weak. Such blatant misrepresentation is generally what you can expect from people who hold shitty views. They wrap up their attack on Reed with an argument that the military has a “morality problem” with violent men not co-existing well with physically and mentally-inferior women (*when the exact opposite is the case*). They conclude with the following “solution.” > “…A better goal would be ensuring that the military’s rigorous physical standards are equally applied to men and women.” If a rigorous physical standard were ever equally applied to both sexes, this problem of sexual abuse would indeed largely disappear; the vast majority of women would wash out of the military. Sounds like a great idea to me: can I haz feminism nao? **II.** As I mentioned at the start of this article, I do not expect anything more than a tepid response from Fred or any of the LRC drones. This is because I suspect these guys realize that they live on borrowed time, that it’s better not to make enemies of the future leadership. Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian represent the future of the libertarian movement; that is, a movement comprised of aborted liberal revolutions and the cast-off remnants of other left-ideologies. It is no surprise that such a compromised movement with standards as low, if not lower than our modern education system see women rise to the top. > “So is “anti-state, anti-war, and pro-market,” or does it support the misdirecting collectivism of Fred Reed? Because it can’t be both.” Indeed, I look to the future of the libertarian movement and I laugh. All of the work of those Jewish thinkers, all of the effort by Raw Paw and his ilk, just so three silly bitches can whine about “muh pussyfreedom.”
[![The Right Stuff](,w_225/v1428562135/truth_nbvuny.jpg)](
The Right Stuff