This excellent guest post is the work of Gray Cat:
Are women natural collectivists? Authoritarians?
And it all boils down to the fact that throughout history, thieves, gangs of thieves, rulers, wars, coercion, collectivism, and the taxes to fund it all, have been the work of men. The modern fathers of collectivism were men; Marx and Engels, for example. Where was any woman included or consulted in drawing up and ratifying the formal documents at the heart of government in this country? And Lincoln certainly was no feminized bleeding-heart liberal — especially in the word’s original and classical sense. Hitler wouldn’t even marry “his” woman, but the Nazis made life-or-death laws against adultery and homosexuality (which their PTB of course did not observe). Lenin; Stalin; Pol Pot; Mao; Hirohito; Churchill; J.P. Morgan, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers; Carnegie. Men. Throughout history, in both the Western world and the Eastern world; in both North and South American ancient and native tribes; in Australian Aboriginal societies; New Guinea . . .. Where are the women initiating this coercion, violence and thievery? (Two Western women could be cited, the British queens Elizabeth I and Victoria, but they were products of the male-dominated and controlled monarchies they were by chance born into, and were not exactly “chosen” to be on the throne, rather men’s laws of succession forced the issue, in that “legitimate” men did not exist within the “royal” line, and those women faced great odds in even the slight advances in liberty they made. They were aberrations — and would be even in our time.)
TPTB are men; marketing is to control men.
It’s all about men controlling and ruling and robbing other men by whatever means works.
So it seems that libertarian independence is really a girl thing — objecting to the violence and criminal rule of men. As historical objects of men’s lust for power and to rule, women generally aren’t really great fans of stealing, robbing, killing, and enslaving. They’ve been part of the “spoils of victory” through the centuries, merely because they aren’t men.
NAP is certainly not a “natural” tendency of men, observationally and historically speaking. “Libertarianism” probably wouldn’t even be an issue if it weren’t for the coercion and violence involved in every other form of political society.
And that is the pity.
It’s garbage in and out to scapegoat women as favoring political collectivism maintained by violent totalitarianism — carried out and headed by men — out of their tendency to favor non-violence demonstrated in risk aversion and desiring a safe and secure environment to rear their children.
Violence, stealing, robbing, controlling, ruling others is a guy thing, plain and simple. Even among chimps, whose males organize gangs deliberately to satiate a bloodlust through malevolent hunting of (usually isolated individuals, though sometimes going after other neighbor established family groups) peaceful neighbors, both males and females, evidently just for the fun of it. But not among gorillas, where females choose to stay under a male who will protect them and their offspring, but not go “seeking monsters to destroy.”
And any woman who adopts those means in order to see herself as “independent” has joined those who would rule her. It’s the nature of the beast.
There is only one truly human and humane basis for civilized and peaceful, safe, society, and that is the Non-Aggression Principle of libertarianism.
I believe it is something that enlightened women teach their children. But there aren’t enough who have escaped the male propaganda who do. “The hand that rocks the cradle” is the key to attaining the intellectual critical mass capable of finally peacefully ostracizing authoritarianism and establishing freedom for all, without over-arching rulers.
To those who can’t imagine life without rulers of one stripe or the other, please read Rothbard and Michael Rozeff. There’s a term for the micro-societies people can and should be free to voluntarily and mutually organize themselves into: panarchism. You can read his excellent introduction to this subject here:
Essentials of Panarchism
There’s no real reason we can’t all be free individuals without imposing rulers over each other, except the “majority” (of whatever gender!) of people are very fond of dominating their neighbors, and don’t want to relinquish all the goodies they delude themselves they’re getting by so doing.
Rulers are merely human beings. Why should any human being(s) rule their fellows? There is no qualification to rule others; no one is qualified to rule others. You’d think that obvious lesson would have been apparent far earlier in history than now.
“Why won’t they leave us alone?” Because they choose not to; ill-gotten gain and status is too lucrative. Violence is all they know.
If we really would be free, the cradle is where it must be taught, and the household must live it every day. Children learn what they live. It’s why government schools as vital centers of indoctrination are so important to the rulers.