Watching that, I notice that the two he asks about cute boys both sort of dodge the question - one says she’ll get back to him and the other just flat out says “We’re not here for boys, we’re here for politics.”

The one who talks the most is a publicist for Stephen Baldwin and the event planner for X-PAC. So she’s there working press, not as a member of the movement per se.

There’s the one who just flat out brushes him off.

If anything, the video shows that there are women at CPAC, and they probably still won’t talk to you unless you’re interesting.

I do know a young woman whose dad raised her in the cult of Libertarianism. But I expect that will wear off one day.

MIT famously had “charm school” to help socialize their nerds and geeks. Perhaps CPAC should add a session or two for their young men.

i wonder if Be Your Own Pet knows that their song is being used on this horrid video. i’d bet not.

And as a bonus, these girls don’t ruin the moment by saying disgusting, slutty things that indicate they know how to prevent pregnancy.

You know, I remember reading that when it came out.  But I still wonder - Do these guys exist in real life?  All of the men I know don’t want sex to result in pregnancy (unless they and their partners actively want to get pregnant).  Every man I know does not want to risk bringing an unwanted child into the world (the degree to which they risk 17%+ of their income in child support is a further disincentive). 

I just don’t get this attitude on the part of people like Douche-hat.  Even in just crass economic terms, does he really want to risk 17% of his income?  He does realize that the court is just going to order DSS to take the money directly out of his paycheck from the NY Times right?  Or is he planning to become a tradesman and work under the table?  (I’ve seen pictures of the guy and have my doubts that he could hack it as a plumber or carpenter.)

I don’t really live in that much of a bubble where all of the men I know are, if not feminist lor feminist leaning, at least capable of looking out for their own economic self interest, do I?

<quote>i wonder if Be Your Own Pet knows that their song is being used on this horrid video. i’d bet not. </quote>

And a song about breaking up with a selfish asshole, no less! Ha ha ha.

Like the video Jesse posted from the tea bagger rallies, the only reason it was made was to show “we have not just white dudes here!”  If it wasn’t for the longtime conservative oppression of women and minorities, there would be nothing special about a few showing up on camera.

Could you imagine how stupid it would be if liberals had to prove on video that Christians, whites, men, or heterosexuals showed up to our conventions also?  Nobody would ever do that cause we never have to defend our diversity.  Conservatives on the other hand have to and they fall flat doing it.

Further evidence that the young men participating in the conference aren’t gay.

Duly noted.

So what are you waiting for, dudes?  Put down that video game controller (don’t worry—-as we note in the video, you can get your fix here), put on your ill-fitting khaki pants, and get your ass to CPAC

<Sarcasm alert!>

Hang on a minute!  I play video games and wear khakis, and am a feminist who wouldn’t be caught dead at CPAC.  Quit promoting that stereotype! 

Oh wait, my khakis actually fit well.  I guess that means everyone at CPAC will think that I am teh ghay.  Then again, that might mean I’ll get plenty of feet wandering under my stall in the mens’ room.

<Sarcasm over>

I don’t really live in that much of a bubble where all of the men I know are, if not feminist lor feminist leaning, at least capable of looking out for their own economic self interest, do I?

The quote in the article has him supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, before she mentions being on the pill.  His residual enthusiasm disappears when she mentions the pill, which could be birth control, but may well be because it connotates vaginal intercourse.  I don’t think he was even attracted to her to begin with; whether he’s not attracted to women at all, or just not to her in particular, I can’t say.  I’ve certainly heard of men who date women because they think they’re supposed to be attracted to them (when they’re actually attracted to fat women, or men, or nobody, or ...), it certainly reads like that to me.

You know, I remember reading that when it came out.  But I still wonder - Do these guys exist in real life?  All of the men I know don’t want sex to result in pregnancy

These men don’t want pregnancy, but they want to have control over preventing it.  It’s not the lack of pregnancy that bothers them.  They don’t like it that women actually intend to have sex.  They don’t like women to have the uppity attitude that they have the right to control their own bodies.  The birth control pills make these men realize they don’t control women’s bodies in two ways.  First and most obvious, the woman is preventing herself from getting pregnant, rather than relying on the man to make that choice for her.  Second, she clearly realized that sex was a possibility for her, and maybe (gasp!) she actually wanted it, rather than waiting for a man to trick, cajole, or game her into it.  It’s like the guys whose fragile egos shatter if a woman makes the first move and kisses him or something, only this goes farther.  They think that sex shouldn’t be up to women, so how could a woman plan for it until a man starts hitting on her?  Even worse to them, they think that women should never, ever want to have sex by their own free will, and they’re supposed to be the gatekeepers.  It’s supposed to be the men who do the “convincing”.  On some level, these guys are also disappointed by the lack of a challenge, since they see sex as game where they take something from a woman.  They probably also feel grossed out by being reminded that this woman has had sex before, since they consider penises to be a contaminating factor for some reason (yet we, apparently, are the man-haters, go figure).  I’m sure there’s also a lot of confusion for these men and it’s just too overwhelming.  It really makes them think about their attitudes towards sex, and they don’t like thinking.  So they want to prevent pregnancy, but they want the power and control to make the choice about pregnancy.

Obviously they do, Richard.  Or enough of them that one has a job at the NY Times, and he probably told that story to sympathetic audiences more than once.

Or what catgirl said.  Men with Madonna/whore complexes think that a woman being prepared for sex makes her slutty, and I suppose it’s disheartening to believe that she’s sleeping with you because she likes to have sex, not because she was so overcome with passion for you personally that she threw all caution to the wind.

re: the link:

Given the subject of his column, Douthat has the most ironic name of all the NY columnists. —All I can think of when i see it is “does it rhyme with ‘asshat’?”

I always get “do that”.  But should it be an imparetive, a question?

Not only are 13 and 14 late to the party, there was never a party to begin with.

... and of course it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that women brought up in conservative households have been trained to look and act conventionally attractive regardless of what they think of the person they’re conversing with…

I wonder if any of the women interviewed actually had a moment where they wondered what, exactly, they were being valued for after all when they were asked the question about whether or not they saw a lot of cute boys.

That first shot of the woman weaving through the crowd was so unintentionally telling. I mean, I know that women are taught to be invisible and that’s why she was taking such pains not to bump into the guy who was standing there talking, but after the video finished, it couldn’t help but be a little “ew, don’t touch me, shit, I gotta get out of here, this is worse than that Farscape Con my roommate suckered me into going to!”

If those interviews were the best they could do, I really wonder what sort of responses ended up on the cutting room floor.

Another aspect of this narrative is the “ours and theirs” thing, where liberal/feminist women are all gross and all conservative women are hot. And they’ve got unflattering pictures of Janet Reno and airbrushed-beyond-all-definition pictures of Peggy Noonan (seriously) to prove their point. Throw “ours and theirs women” into Google Images and see the first image—hosted by Stormfront, of course.

The whole thing is childish and unconvincing… but still, I’m surprised they didn’t find more girls willing to help them sell it. Pathetic.

Our lab undergraduate just got back from a grad school visit complaining that “Why is it when a hot guy finally chats me up on the plane he’s coming from CPAC and wants to talk about Glenn Beck?”  It’s not like her standards are that high - her current boyfriend is one of those science-student-libertarian types, and if you’re perceived as more obnoxious than that, then there’s little anyone can do for you.

Women and wonks are mutually exclusive categories, I gather from the first line.

I clicked out of morbid curiousity and I literally couldn’t watch more than thirty seconds. I couldn’t watch for long enough even to analyse why the nausea was rising, I think it might have been the massive extent of the othering that was getting to me. And the exclamation mark after WOMEN! and the LOOK LOOK THIS IS A GIRL AND SO IS THIS AND SO IS THIS, LETS IMAGINE THEM ALL NAKED gaze of the camera.

I wonder if any of the women interviewed actually had a moment where they wondered what, exactly, they were being valued for after all when they were asked the question about whether or not they saw a lot of cute boys.

Some of them probably know exactly what they are being valued for, and they’re probably glad for it because they underestimate themselves and really believe that that’s the only thing that anyone could like about them.  If they spend their entire childhood with people telling them that they’re not good at “important” things, then plenty of them will believe it, and fall back on the one thing they think men value most.

catgirl, if that’s the case, they wouldn’t have blown off the question and quickly as they did.

I do know a young woman whose dad raised her in the cult of Libertarianism. But I expect that will wear off one day.

I have never, ever met a female libertarian, not even online in political blogs and forums. Libertarianism is a sausage fest, and for a reason. It’s the same reason Ayn Rand never had any children in her novels except as faceless background props.

Cameraman sounds like a pornographer.

I knew a libertarian girl back in school, had classes from elementary school through high school. She was raised fundie christian, and found her way to libertarianism on her own. “Because I think I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.”

She was very, very angry. Scared the hell out of me.

catgirl @10-

Or to condense what you say, they view, as Andrea Dworkin noted long ago when it was more common, sex as rape. Basically as a game where they manipulate the consent of “gatekeepers” whose job is to outwit them (but obviously can’t succeed owing to women’s “naturally lower intellect”) in order to get a unilateral sexual interaction where they have complete control and she doesn’t have say in things like whether she’s enjoying herself, whether she is making sure there are basic precautions, or even whether she has a right to stop it after she fails to guard her boundaries and sex starts (this is where you get the weird cultural notion that it’s somehow an emasculating insult or a dirty trick for a woman to withdraw consent mid-sex).

I have never, ever met a female libertarian, not even online in political blogs and forums. Libertarianism is a sausage fest, and for a reason. It’s the same reason Ayn Rand never had any children in her novels except as faceless background props.

I encountered a few female libertarians at a couple of Ivy league schools.  The main things they all had in common is that they come from exceedingly well-to-do families in the US or abroad* and they don’t feel that it is the government’s place to use taxes as a form of wealth redistribution to those they see as “lazy” and less “hardworking” than themselves.  In fact, this very act is viewed by them as “punishing” the successes of their parents and themselves. 

Did I mention they were all econ majors who subscribed to the extreme laissez-faire school of capitalism and all of them were subsidized by parental money and/or trustfunds??

* Many from Great Britain or China.

“Because I think I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.”

Oh wow. Wasn’t there a thing years ago when the army were selling off surplus equipment they put up the machinery that was used to make Fat man and Little boy for sale and for several weeks some kooky old man was the second nuclear power in america because the apparatus was still functional.

The one who talks the most is a publicist for Stephen Baldwin and the event planner for X-PAC. So she’s there working press, not as a member of the movement per se.

This.  Faster than I could type it.

Then you have the ones who couldn’t come up with a position they supported (besides “conservative values rock!”)

As for the Douchehat siderail, besides the fact that he’s grossed out by a woman actually wanting to have sex, the fact that she’s on the pill makes it an ultra-double-secret-extra sin.

See, if you just get carried away in the moment and have sex, that’s a sin.

If you bring birth control, then you were PLANNING to have sex.  That’s a much much worse sin.  The fact that lack of planning leaves you pregnant is simply just punishment for the sin of having sex.  Avoiding that punishment and having fear-free sex is akin to 1st degree murder instead of manslaughter.  As in the priest won’t grant you absolution, and you get to go to HELLLLLLLLL!

So isn’t having an unwanted baby you are completely unprepared to raise a better deal than eternal damnation?

I’m not joking.  That is an official Catholic Church position.

Douchehat—in addition to be grossed out by a woman who wanted to have sex, who controlled her own fertility, and who didn’t wait for him to give up her virginity b/c she just couldn’t help being carried away by her passion for him—was freaked out by her happy embrace of eternal damnation instead of being properly submissive and frightened.

@21

Yeah, the video is purportedly like their other stuff to argue that while liberals may seem all down with the walking vaginas as something akin to actual humans, that only attracts broads who can’t marry and uppity dykes (possibly one and the same) and thus the conservative movement attracts all the hot breeders unspoiled by feminism to take up their natural role as the person who will raise your children while you surf manhunt for dl bathroom encounters.

But yeah, like Jesse’s video, having to make this video kind of disproves itself and further more shows how they’re starting to chafe under the cultural pressures they are working against. In the old days, they wouldn’t have made this video. I mean, who’d expect women around for something like politics. It’d hurt their brains and besides women are just wives (or wannabe wives) and wives will just vote how you do out of a well-trained Stockholm Syndrome. Their response to liberal conferences having lots of women would have been a distinct “and that’s the problem” (see the half jokes about eliminating women’s suffrage).

But now, they’re feeling more and more pressure to actually admit to women and trying to argue that it’s actually lots more women and better women (at being potential wives or hotter wives) than the competition. This means the criticisms and the culture is moving away inexorably slower. They need the female human shields to hide behind. Again, a sign of progress, though, admittedly the level of retrogression in movement conservatives makes it this fundamentally fucked-up.

On female libertarians, they show up sometimes. I knew one who will probably grow up out of it sometime. She also had some proto-feminist beliefs but hadn’t developed enough consciousness to really move beyond the shallow. Ironically for a Randroid, she actually had some personal talent and was good at a craft. Sadly for her, her libertarianism was moving her to reject that skill and try and focus all her energy on a subject she had way less aptitude for (physics) because her actual skill (art) was seen by her as frivilous. But yeah, way rarer than male libertarians by a lot but not as rare as black libertarians.

I have never, ever met a female libertarian, not even online in political blogs and forums.

I’ve met plenty, and all of them were pro-choice and anti-religion.  But then most libertarians I know come at it from the left, not the right of the political spectrum.

The one who’s not there for cute boys has what I call a Southern Belle look to her. Taking pride in her appearance does not mean she wants to be randomly hit on—best that she make that clear right away.

Sadly for her, her libertarianism was moving her to reject that skill and try and focus all her energy on a subject she had way less aptitude for (physics) because her actual skill (art) was seen by her as frivilous.

Ironic considering how “frivolous” occupations/talents == not lucrative in this context and the fact that there has been many periods within the last 2 decades where being a physics major would be equally frivolous. 

*Cue in the Physics majors…including PhDs driving cabs, delivering mail, and otherwise doing work perceived to be “beneath them” stories.* 

The above stories were told with plenty of relish by many engineering, CS, humanities, and other majors as a retort to physics majors who felt they were the intellectual superiors of everyone else on campus.

It wasn’t until I read the comments that I realized the video was made in earnest.  *boggle*

I’m blaming it on it being a Monday.

what exholt said.

I have met a few female libertarians. However, I have been waiting years to meet a libertarian who is NOT from a well to do background. The idea of privilege just doesn’t seep through their tiny self-absorbed brains. If you meet a libertarian who was raised poor, take a photo or people will laugh at you the same way they would if you said you saw a unicorn.

If you meet a libertarian who was raised poor, take a photo or people will laugh at you the same way they would if you said you saw a unicorn.

I have met one.  To this day I have no idea wtf was going on in his head.  His parents were so poor when he was growing up that they would eat dandelion greens out of their yard, and yet he honestly seems to think that they deserved no help whatsoever.  It blew my mind.  He was still white though, for what that’s worth.

People who self-identify as libertarians make up a very diverse group, so it’s hard to say how many female libertarians actually exist.  I think a lot of college freshman are duped by that “world’s shortest political quiz”, where if you’re not libertarian, then you’re basically admitting that you’re some kind of communist Hitler.  So, it’s not that hard to find female libertarians, but they’re mostly young women who just haven’t yet realized that their beliefs fit more with a general liberal philosophy.

According to Wikipedia, the last female libertarian died in captivity in 1961. Sorry, anecdotechnicians!

According to Wikipedia, the last female libertarian died in captivity in 1961. Sorry, anecdotechnicians!

You’d have to wonder why that breeding program failed.

When I see stuff like this, I imagine that both the conservative young men and young women look at their counterparts and find them not attractive enough for their tastes.  The guys want women who look like Barbie, and the women want men who look like Ken.  I imagine the conservative guys looking at most of those women and thinking “Meh.  Not perfect enough for me.”  And the conservative women looking at the men and thinking. “Well…  I prefer masculine and rugged.”

So, it’s not that hard to find female libertarians, but they’re mostly young women who just haven’t yet realized that their beliefs fit more with a general liberal philosophy.

I’m going to have to go with this.  At least, it’s been my experience.  I’m female (and I was poor growing up) and I used to identify as libertarian, back when I was young and selfish and stupid.  I grew out of it pretty quickly, but I certainly wasn’t alone at the time.

Sadly for her, her libertarianism was moving her to reject that skill and try and focus all her energy on a subject she had way less aptitude for (physics) because her actual skill (art) was seen by her as frivilous.

Playing off exholt, there’s a joke that goes, “What’s the difference between a Ph.D. in physics and a pizza?”

A: “A pizza can feed a family of four.”

Physics is, however, extremely challenging, and there is a certain amount of cachet to be gained in majoring in it, even if you go on to pursue a more remunerative profession or graduate program after graduating.

CPAC attendees strike me as kids who majored in history or business, though.

I watched this without the sound on. I didn’t want to be put off by the rhetoric. I just saw some rather nice looking young ladies but not anyone interviewed who could be considered hot. Quite a few need haircuts—not that they need to be super styled, just trimmed and maintained.

Living in SoCal, and having the fashion bar set high, I feel most of them need a bit of help—but good golly—they’re female political wonks after all!

Seriously, the only one who was hair was fantastic and was flawlessly suited was the woman who had no time for the video guys! I’m betting this one is super organized, has both beauty and brains, and knows exactly what she wants and how to get there.

My point is that the women were there to be part of something, not for some video guys’ idea of the hotness factor. Point lost on the guys.

I genuinely thought this was a video mocking CPAC, although I didn’t think it was terribly funny.  And then I finally work out that this was made in earnest to promote CPAC and - boggle!

So, it’s not that hard to find female libertarians, but they’re mostly young women who just haven’t yet realized that their beliefs fit more with a general liberal philosophy.

And who haven’t yet spent enough time with libertarian guys to realize how entitled and obnoxious they are.  Talk to enough Randian male pro-lifers who think a woman has less right to reject a man’s ‘deposit’ than a bank does and you’ll find your tune changing too.

CPAC attendees strike me as kids who majored in history or business, though.

Heh.  You mean history majors who haven’t read any, and business majors who never heard of child labor or the Pure Food Laws.

Ah, another fine production of the Daily Caller (AKA “A Tucker Carlson Joint”). The networks wouldn’t touch the concept, but I could see a great cable cringe-comedy sitcom revolving around the formerly bow-tied pundit version of Michael Scott.

CPAC attendees strike me as kids who majored in history or business, though.

Tyro,

Agree with business/econ.  However, I’m surprised you mentioned history. 

Unless one attended an extremely conservative school, most history majors IME tend to be center-radical left of the political spectrum….even those who concentrated solely on American History…the concentration with the highest concentration of conservatives IME….and even then…many tend to get turned off when they find they have to learn its less patriotic positive aspects. 

It is also seen as too closely related to literature and thus, “too frivolous”.  IME, they’re far more likely to be political science majors…with concentrations mainly in American politics and sometimes..IR.  After the intro courses, it is far too easy for poli-sci majors to concentrate on studying political theories, institutions, and more while ignoring history or other factors…..especially with the infestation of rational choice theory in that field.  This very blinkered focus I saw in poli-sci majors and the field to some extent was one reason why I opted to major in history rather than political science.

It is also sad how so many political science majors of this ilk feel themselves superior to history majors for “knowing more” and yet…are so laughably ignorant of the basic history critical in analyzing and understanding their field…..and I say this as someone who was a poli-sci minor who took more advanced poli-sci courses than required for someone majoring in that field. 

And who haven’t yet spent enough time with libertarian guys to realize how entitled and obnoxious they are.  Talk to enough Randian male pro-lifers who think a woman has less right to reject a man’s ‘deposit’ than a bank does and you’ll find your tune changing too.

Oh yes, I’m sure plenty of female libertarians run fast in the opposite direction when they hear men talking about how wives should quit their jobs to be stay-at-home moms because men aren’t nurturing enough to care for their own children, but then also insist that if the mother gets divorced or even widowed, she shouldn’t expect any help from her ex-husband or from society because she knew what risk she was taking when she chose to have kids. 

I didn’t mean to discount the terrible way that libertarianism treats women as the major reason for pushing women away.  My point was that, in addition to the misogyny, a lot of young women (and men) don’t even know what libertarian actually means, because that little propaganda quiz makes it sound like libertarianism is essentially liberalism, and that if you don’t label yourself as libertarian, then you hate freedom or something.  When they realize that “liberal” or “progressive” matches up more closely with their ideals, they drop they libertarian label because they no longer need it.

I have been waiting years to meet a libertarian who is NOT from a well to do background.

Meet my mother, the ultra-right-wing libertarian, one of the Ruby Ridge/Timothy McVeigh weapon-stockpiling bunch.

She alternates between sending me sappy unicorns-kittens-and-rainbows forwards and anti-tax screeds. I finally told her that until she digs her own well, refines her own gas, and generates her own electricity, I’m not interested.  I love her, but I think she’s off her rocker.

On the issue of rich/poor libertarians, her mother was from a fairly highly educated/professional family and ran off with the mail carrier, so we were basically the poor relations.  In my mom’s defense, she was raised by her father to be the perfect doormat, and she has married a succession of men who thought that was just dandy.  I’d say she’d been brainwashed, but she’s old enough that that’s no longer an excuse for not thinking for herself.

At the risk of sounding homophobic (which I certainly am not) the read i got on this “Daily Caller” dude is that he’s Trying Really Hard To Sound Straight

He reminds me of a bisexual kid I went to high school with, who was always desperately hitting on girls because he was “supposed to” (and then pushing them away if they actually wanted to have sex with him).

Frankly, “Daily Caller” seemed a lot more interested in those “hot conservative guys” than any of the women did!

A future Larry Craig in the making?

I know some people, including some women, who come from Republican backgrounds who were SO ASHAMED by Bushco, they re-labeled themselves as Libertarians, because they didn’t want to admit they were Republicans anymore.

They just couldn’t quite go all the way and become Liberals. But give it time!

However, I’m surprised you mentioned history. 

History does attract the right winger type who wants to drift through school without working too hard. It is a “default” major for a lot of people. Present company excepted, of course. My liberal friends who were history majors at liberal arts colleges tended to combine that major with something else, like poli-sci.

I wonder though about an interesting aspect of young women being tempted by libertarianism before being chased off by the open contempt for women and the idiotic understanding of the world. Libertarianism is all about selfishness and putting oneself first, which is probably exactly what you need to hear when you’ve grown up all your life in catholic backgrounds that tell women that having a self at all is a sin against God.

Maybe it can be a short-term crutch for getting a woman into the habit of actually considering her self and building self-esteem for the first time.

Well, that is if it didn’t have regressive ideas on women’s right to self in its own right or filled with the type of men who view women as sperm deposit centers or wasn’t the diseased philosophy of a broken hurting sociopath.

Certainly the female libertarian I knew was pretty obviously using it to try and purge her catholic guilt, which is why I suspect it’ll fade before she fully ends up fucking up her life on a plan that won’t make her actually happier. Either that or I’ll hope the stack of feminist books I left her before I left made an impact.

Physics is, however, extremely challenging, and there is a certain amount of cachet to be gained in majoring in it, even if you go on to pursue a more remunerative profession or graduate program after graduating.

I majored in physics, even have a MS in it.  Both my sisters, with associate’s degrees (one is a PTA and the other is a LPN working on her RN), outearn me and make fun of the fact that I’m highly educated and underqualified for just about everything.  It’s even worse that I’ve now gone back to school for a PhD (in science ed this time).  I was never one for practical matters concerning education, though.

But, most people who aren’t related to me get all impressed when I tell them what my degrees are in.  Because, however useless it is as far as employment, there is the perception that physics is the “difficult” science and I must be really smart to have majored in it.

History does attract the right winger type who wants to drift through school without working too hard. It is a “default” major for a lot of people.

These days, right-wing liberal arts students in real universities (as opposed to phony-baloney wingnut welfare ones) tend toward an econ or poli-sci major, where their reality-challenged ideological views aren’t going to be challenged by historical facts.

Which isn’t to say that history major doesn’t attract a fair proportion of blowhard self-professed “gadflies” who are mainly interested in the disreputable form of revisionist history. Not surprisingly, they tend to gravitate toward studies of Civil-War era America.

Most Libertarians I’ve run into tend to be engineering or comp-sci grads.

@catgirl: I was a libertarian for more or less those reasons, in high school.  I did confuse liberalism with libertarianism, I liked the angry and self-centered tone of Ayn Rand’s work, and I had a rather limited grasp of economics.  My paranoia at the time about The Government becoming more involved in my life or having more power also came from the same mental place as my paranoia about driving on highways, trusting other people, and getting treated for mental illness.  I wonder how many libertarians have a deep distrust of society and government institutions for mental-health reasons, and how many of them could profit as enormously as I did from admitting they need help and seeking counseling.  I’m a far healthier person now that I consciously acknowledge I have anxiety problems and I do benefit enormously from my privileges and from others’ help.

Hell, I considered myself a libertarian—albeit not a “pure” one—until I was 40.  (White, female, and gay, for those keeping score.) I wouldn’t say we were poor when I was growing up, but I do distinctly remember that the Baskin-Robbins 50-cent ice cream cone was an unreasonable extravagance compared to the Thrifty 15-cent cone, when I was out shopping with Mom as a kid.  So we’ll say lower-middle-class.

I believed in a minimal social safety net, which is why I wasn’t “pure.” But I also believed (and still believe) in legalizing drugs and prostitution, no restrictions on abortion, and only the most minimal forms of gun control (I’m okay with the National Firearms Act of 1934).

I’ve done what I consider to be a lot of growing up in the last three years, and I’m much more a conventional liberal now.

So glad norbizness could take time out from its bizzy schedule to scold me. FOAD.

Wait, CPAC has free Dippin’ Dots?

Everybody!  But especially the ladies!  We have to go be Republicans now!  THEY HAVE FREE DIPPIN’ DOTS!

@Cerebus - The majority of female Libertarians I know came to it through something you describe. It was their first permission to be not-doormats, and they embraced it. They eventually moved out of it after encountering its more unappealing sides.  I even know a handful of women who have a soft spot for Rand because she was their gateway to standing up for themselves, even if they can’t really stand her now. (Especially her portrayal of women waiting for the right dominant male.)

I LOL’d at #60. Who the hell gets so butthert over the fact that Norbizness is funnier than they are?  Norbizness is funnier then everyone.

I was a history major and most people were ranged from center-left to self-described Marxist. The exception was ex-military people, which the major seemed to attract a lot of. They were usually Republicans.

The libertarians I knew were engineering majors, followed by computer science or the like.

And the ex-military contingent wasn’t libertarian but center-right.

History does attract the right winger type who wants to drift through school without working too hard. It is a “default” major for a lot of people.

I don’t know what schools you’ve attended or visited, but that was so far from the case at the various college campuses I’ve visited or attended.  Unless the school/history department in question is extremely conservative to begin with and/or a complete joke, that’s not it is perceived by others IME. 

Your description of the history major would IME be more an apt description of a poli-sci major…especially those who concentrate in American politics or to some extent IR.  I’d also add that most conservative/libertarian poli-sci students do try to take the easiest courses and the absolute minimum number of advanced topical or theory courses necessary to graduate without working too hard. 

Gracchus has it right here:

These days, right-wing liberal arts students in real universities (as opposed to phony-baloney wingnut welfare ones) tend toward an econ or poli-sci major, where their reality-challenged ideological views aren’t going to be challenged by historical facts.

Which isn’t to say that history major doesn’t attract a fair proportion of blowhard self-professed “gadflies” who are mainly interested in the disreputable form of revisionist history. Not surprisingly, they tend to gravitate toward studies of Civil-War era America.

Nearly all conservatives history majors tend to concentrate in American history.  Assuming they even bothered with a specialization in the first place….mainly Civil War, American political/social elites, military, and WWII periods/areas.

Eh, they’re not really into the Civil War anymore now that that area of specialization is moving away from the mid 20th Century feel-good “Blue and Grey”/lost cause bullshit and towards a much, much more critical and darker view of the Confederacy.

World War II though? Oh yeah. It’s the closest thing we’ve ever had to a black-and-white good vs. evil war, so of course right wing types gravitate towards it.

Most Libertarians I’ve run into tend to be engineering or comp-sci grads.

The libertarians I knew were engineering majors, followed by computer science or the like.

Most libertarians I’ve met tend to be econ/business, poli-sci, engineering, physics, and CS from the most to less numerous. 

Moreover, from being around and working with many engineering/CS majors….they tend to either be hardcore libertarians or some of the most progressive radical DFH I’ve met in my life.  It is almost always one or the other…..leads to some very heated lunchtime/afterwork hangout political discussions. 

And the ex-military contingent wasn’t libertarian but center-right.

The ex-military contingent at one of the Ivy campuses tend to be right-leaning independents with some libertarians and center-left students in the mix.

I think a lot of college freshman are duped by that “world’s shortest political quiz”, where if you’re not libertarian, then you’re basically admitting that you’re some kind of communist Hitler.

I’m a far left liberal on that thing.  Some weird combination of Stalin and Thomas Jefferson perhaps?

  So, it’s not that hard to find female libertarians, but they’re mostly young women who just haven’t yet realized that their beliefs fit more with a general liberal philosophy.

I think this is a good description.  Most libertarians I know came to it from the left.  I think this is because they grew up in places in the South and Texas where local government was mostly about cramming some form of lunatic Christianism down their throats.  Some of the thinking was, “hey if we limit state/municipal power, we limit the ability of the fundies to employ that weapon against women, people of color, and gays.”  Combine this with a heavy dose of naivete about how business will always hire the best person for the job regardless of race, gender, sex, or sexual orientation (because it would simply be irrational for a business to do otherwise), and voila - a left libertarian is born.

I was one of these people until I learned about the collective action problem, transaction costs, and externalities.  Those three things lead me to conclude that libertarianism is bunk, and to become a social democrat.  Several of my friends however never quite made it over that intellectual hump and remain libertarians.

The funny thing is my dad fancies himself a libertarian.  I asked him what he thought about affirmative action a long time ago.  He responded that it was necessary to make sure that the best people don’t get shut out of positions due to irrational prejudice.

I have come to the conclusion that most libertarian theory looks attractive and elegant on paper (think Robert Nozick here, not Glenn Beck).  But when people begin to question the facts on the ground (be it irrational prejudice or the inability of libertarianism to account for externalities), their libertarianism is apt to erode.

I’ve generally thought of history as one of those do-it-if-you-like-it-‘cause-no-one-will-pay-you majors (like English), while poli-sci was a little more marketable, and therefore more appealing to tools like Libertarian dudes. And I know and like some history majors, while I don’t really know any poli-sci people, which makes it easier to hate on them*. (Also, as a biologist, I have to turn up my nose at the “science” part of the name! It’s probably unfair to the major, but I lol a little inside when humanityish/politicalish stuff tacks a “science” on the end. :p Sometimes I get a little puritanical; if you aren’t dividing countries into groups and randomly assigning conditions to them to double-blind measure later it doesn’t count!)

/derail

This video is like if someone accuses you of being racist and you not only pull out the “I have a black friend!” card but then you insist that said black friend makes a video with you proving they are real. And then you post it on YouTube with the title “My Black Friend!” and pretend you’re hood. :p

*present company excepted, of course, as always.

I’ve generally thought of history as one of those do-it-if-you-like-it-’cause-no-one-will-pay-you majors (like English), while poli-sci was a little more marketable, and therefore more appealing to tools like Libertarian dudes.

Well, I always thought of Poli Sci as only marketable if you wanted to go to law school or get your Masters in Public Admin—and libertarians hate trial lawyers and government bureaucrats.

Most libertarians I’ve met tend to be econ/business, poli-sci, engineering, physics, and CS from the most to less numerous.

Clearly, sir, you didn’t work in teh dot-com.

Seriously, the econ/business and poli-sci majors do tend to draw the Libertarians these days, although you find a lot of technocratic Libertarians in STEM majors. And strangely, pre-law seems to attract the Libertarian students as well, since a JD is one of the best paths to political office and also because a lot of them are debate-club nerds to begin with.

I’ve generally thought of history as one of those do-it-if-you-like-it-’cause-no-one-will-pay-you majors (like English), while poli-sci was a little more marketable, and therefore more appealing to tools like Libertarian dudes.

Funny you say that as history and poli-sci are treated similarly IME in terms of marketability. 

If you concentrated in the American area, it will get doors opened if one hopes to work in politics, corporate jobs, law schools, etc….but won’t distinguish the fresh graduate concerned unless s(he) has above average grades (3.3/4.0+) and skills (i.e. Command of languages, especially non-Western ones or statistics) because most undergrads in both areas tend to concentrate in the American area because they feel they can coast on what they learned in K-12 and there are often little/no special requirements such as a difficult foreign language. 

(Also, as a biologist, I have to turn up my nose at the “science” part of the name! It’s probably unfair to the major, but I lol a little inside when humanityish/politicalish stuff tacks a “science” on the end. raspberry Sometimes I get a little puritanical; if you aren’t dividing countries into groups and randomly assigning conditions to them to double-blind measure later it doesn’t count!

There are intractable ethical, logistical, and legal issues and problems with using the standards you call for.  One of the most serious issues social sciences like poli-sci have been grappling with is how to resolve the conflict between conducting studies with the level of scientific rigor you described without coming into conflict with those issues….especially when you are dealing not only with large complex ever changing societies, but individual persons and groups of people who have a right not to be treated as guinea pigs unless they voluntarily consent to it….and even the latter has limitations because of said issues.

Moreover, from being around and working with many engineering/CS majors….they tend to either be hardcore libertarians or some of the most progressive radical DFH I’ve met in my life.  It is almost always one or the other…..leads to some very heated lunchtime/afterwork hangout political discussions.

I was doing my CS major during the time the dotcom bubble was still inflating and you had all these 20 year old millionaires coming out the woodwork. Those like me who stayed a bit in academia trended a lot more towards DFHness than those who tried to get their degree ASAP so they could get into the business of separating venture capitalists from their money. There was a short period of time where CS was basically like an MBA program: filled up with people who have no interest or competence in the subject but wanted a marketable piece of paper.

I take some pleasure in knowing those schoolmates who only wanted to be the next Google or Microsoft ended up unemployed while I was doing my Masters degree. Unfortunatly for that to happen it means all the cool friends I made had to suffer through the bust as well. :(

Clearly, sir, you didn’t work in teh dot-com.

Actually, I worked in 2 dot-coms…..and the engineers/CS people I worked with in them or subsequent companies tended to be hardcore libertarians or radical DFHs.  Extreme right or extreme left….no in-between…

Though I won’t dispute you that there are plenty of libertarians in STEM fields, I’ve met far more libertarians who happen to be econ, business, or poli-sci majors on most campuses and workplaces.  Considering how friends in the econ and poli-sci field have been ranting about the infestation of rational choice theory in econ and poli-sci….the large numbers of libertarians in those two fields are no surprise…

Well, I always thought of Poli Sci as only marketable if you wanted to go to law school or get your Masters in Public Admin—and libertarians hate trial lawyers and government bureaucrats.

Funny part….you don’t need a poli-sci major to pursue either the MPA or JD degrees…....my undergrad business major friend and linguistics major uncle are both living proof respectively.  Both are also as opposite of libertarians as you can get….

If anything, having a poli-sci major can actually be a liability when applying to law school since I remembered hearing from my uncle and other lawyers/law students that poli-sci is the most popular undergrad major of most law school applicants.

There are intractable ethical, logistical, and legal issues and problems with using the standards you call for.

I wouldn’t really say that my tongue-in-cheek mocking of poli-“sci” by jokingly applying biology-level experimental standards to an entire world population was exactly “call[ing] for” those standards. Clearly I need to use more “:p"s in my paragraph to illustrated the silliness of what I say. :p :p <—like so

I dabbled in libertarianism for awhile.  Mostly it was a reaction to what I perceived as “Nanny state” legislation over personal habits.  But ultimately, while I believe human beings should be as free as realistically possible, I believe that corporations should be as regulated as humanly possible, and that’s where I part company with libertarianism.

But, most people who aren’t related to me get all impressed when I tell them what my degrees are in.  Because, however useless it is as far as employment, there is the perception that physics is the “difficult” science and I must be really smart to have majored in it.

I’m generally up front about explaining that the reason I have a job that pays as well as it does is that I was not smart enough to be a physicist or successful enough of a researcher to become a computer science professor. The burden of having to take a well paying job is just my cross to bear, I guess.

Another thing, though is that I’ve been shocked how the younger engineering generation has really turned away from the republican party. Most of my engineering colleagues are DFHs. A few of the politically apathetic went the libertarian route, but that is the exception.

I take a back seat to no-one in my dislike of Ross Douthat, but…

... why tell someone you’re on the pill unless you are suggesting the possibility of unprotected sex?  And wouldn’t it then be reasonable for them to suppose that you have had unprotected sex with random people before, and are therefore at an increased risk of having STDs you don’t know about?

Now if she had said “I have a case of condoms and 4 gallons of lube,” THAT would have been hot.

“... why tell someone you’re on the pill unless you are suggesting the possibility of unprotected sex?”

Because condoms aren’t perfect and, with most normal people, that means they can relax a little bit more about the possible long-term consequences of a one-night stand?  Because it can be a subtle way of signaling that you take not getting pregnant seriously and/or are used to protecting your own reproductive health?  Really, assuming that this is an oblique invitation to condom-free sex is the leas-charitable reading possible, short of “She knew what a complete weenie he was about this stuff and said it just to watch his boner deflate.”

@13 I insist on referring to him as Ross “I Would Do Anything For Love But I Won’t” Douthat.  It’s a mouthful, but I feel it’s worth it.

(fights Michael Scott reflex)

I wouldn’t really say that my tongue-in-cheek mocking of poli-“sci” by jokingly applying biology-level experimental standards to an entire world population was exactly “call[ing] for” those standards. Clearly I need to use more “:p"s in my paragraph to illustrated the silliness of what I say. :p :p<—like so

Scary part is I actually know natural science majors/grad students who actually said what you wrote above in all seriousness. 

As for finding non-libertarians/non-conservatives among poli-sci majors:

You’d have much better luck IME looking at comparative politics concentrators rather than American politics(Sometimes a.k.a. “pre-law”) or IR concentrators.  There is some bias, however, as all the poli-sci majors I get along with/am still friends with tend to be comparativists, my poli-sci minor is a tossup between comparative (America and China) and political theory, and I have yet to meet a comparativist who is a libertarian/conservative.  Your chances are also probably better if you also look at public policy/public administration concentrators….though YMMV….

@24 I’ve met several women who really liked Rand.  All of them were pretty diehard liberals when it came to actual voting patterns.  None of them would fuck a conservative, which kind of ruins the appeal of having them in the GOP tent.

Funny you say that as history and poli-sci are treated similarly IME in terms of marketability.

If you concentrated in the American area, it will get doors opened if one hopes to work in politics, corporate jobs, law schools, etc….but won’t distinguish the fresh graduate concerned unless s(he) has above average grades (3.3/4.0+) and skills (i.e. Command of languages, especially non-Western ones or statistics) because most undergrads in both areas tend to concentrate in the American area because they feel they can coast on what they learned in K-12 and there are often little/no special requirements such as a difficult foreign language.

I don’t know a foreign language, clearly I am an imbecile….Oh wait, I still have a PhD.  Damn me! Course I’m being a bit facetious there.  Not everybody has an easy time with languages and I have banged my head viciously against both Spanish and German.  But yes, the majority of undergrads in history tend to stay American because it interests them more than French, German, or Asian history (just to name a few).  I went through undergrad at a school where we had only one americanist and four various forms of european or asian history professors.  But because they were a teaching college they all taught various forms of American History as needed.  It’s just a necessity of the program and the way it’s designed.  Course the department designed that all upper-level in-major courses were foreign and thus you needed to learn at least something about the world as a whole.

As it stands, if I come across foreign language docs in my studies (which is fairly often) I get out my dictionary or send it through an internet translator.  It’s not perfect, but I manage. 

Libertarians though are largely egotistical freaks.  Most are from rich families that assume their wealth was self-made when it was mostly luck or inherited.  The poorer ones just became so self-infatuated they believe the world will one day give them mass respect.  Rand isn’t so much a libertarian as a crazed egotistical fascist.  She has no love for anyone but herself and freedom is a byproduct of her self-centered needs.  Ironically she lived in a penthouse in NYC most of her days far from the cries of her books to destroy the world to rebuild it in personal freedom.

Most are from rich families that assume their wealth was self-made when it was mostly luck or inherited. 

Born on third base, believing they hit a home run, and thinking that they could be the entire team by themselves.

oh EW.

1. did they intentionally only show girls with nothing to say, implying we have cute but airheaded girls? ...yeah, i’m betting so.

2. bouncy couches? was that supposed to be some sort of sexy come-on?

3. nerd bashing!

this video is SO stupid and boring.

Now if she had said “I have a case of condoms and 4 gallons of lube,” THAT would have been hot.

For normal folks, yeah.  But to the world’s Doughats, there’s only one thin ickier than a woman who takes responsibility for her own sexuality and that’s a woman who expects him to take responsibility for his.  Next thing you know, she’ll be asking him to listen to her when she talks and pick up his own dirty socks—where will it all end??!

Besides, I can just hear Ross telling his spellbound friends; “She actually had condoms and lube—that must mean she was gay or something!  Dodged a bullet there, didn’t I?”

Another thing, though is that I’ve been shocked how the younger engineering generation has really turned away from the republican party.

I’m a recent engineering grad, and I had only one classmate who was Republican, and a handful who claimed to be libertarian.  I don’t know why engineers get such a bad rap for being conservative.

I don’t know why engineers get such a bad rap for being conservative.

Horn-rimmed glasses and buzz-cuts, slide-rules, white shirts and black ties…It’s a stereotype from the 50’s and 60’s, no longer applicable but memes die hard…

I’m a recent engineering grad, and I had only one classmate who was Republican, and a handful who claimed to be libertarian.  I don’t know why engineers get such a bad rap for being conservative.

Conservatives thrive on trotting out these tired old stats about how engineers, doctors, and laywers (the successful important college graduates) tend to be more conservative than their fellow college graduates though the aggregate scores across the board for college grads pushes far left which they usually ignore.

Before I switched in undergrad to History I did mechanical engineering.  Most of the professors and students were hard-left types.  Just a stereotype that conservatives try to push about rationality and conservatism.

i registered more or less to agree with everything that catgirl said.

i’m man enough to admit (and brag that) i’ve been picked up by some very strong women in my time (and picked up some myself).

it’s this damn simple: “It’s not the lack of pregnancy that bothers them.  They don’t like it that women actually intend to have sex.”

Conservatives thrive on trotting out these tired old stats about how engineers, doctors, and laywers (the successful important college graduates) tend to be more conservative than their fellow college graduates though the aggregate scores across the board for college grads pushes far left which they usually ignore.

IME, far more libertarians and conservatives tend to be econ, business, and poli-sci majors…and in the latter case…mainly in American politics and to some extent IR. 

The only reasons why engineers tend to be regarded as “more conservative” is not because there are a lot more conservatives in engineering than in other majors, but that the vast majority of engineering majors IME avidly avoid anything having to do with politics because they feel it has little to do with them or that politicians, poli-sci majors, and political activists/policy wonks operate on such an irrational illogical wavelength in terms of thought processes, analysis, and intellect that they are just too frustrating and not worth dealing with.  Some IME would regard anyone with a serious interest in politics in the same way as many people would regard those who joined a religious cult.

I think of some of those engineering types as not so much politically conservative as socially conservative. A bunch of predominantly white, male, college kids (who are sure that they are brilliant) from comfortably middle-class families living in a fairly white, male, college world? Not used to having their world-view challenged that much, it seems. But you get that with a lot of those kinds of guys in every major (*coughPre-medcough*) so I don’t know if it’s engineering-specific at all.