Are Women “Natural” Collectivists?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

Also see:
The Voluntaryist

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.

Share Button


  1. As a man who was in the military I can tell you I’m an atheist and was in the foxhole. I fought along side some badass women and never once heard them ask for it or seek out the protection of the men in our unit. The divorce and custody laws were written with the outdated idea of men as provider/protector and women as nuturer/ stay at home and it may have served a purpose at one time but now it doesn’t.
    Gender roles are disempowering to both sexes. Making broad statements about either sex isn’t going change anything. It only serves to further the divide between any group.
    My wife served with me, worked her whole pregnancy and together we raise our daughters to be informed, self reliant, and stress the value of education in all aspects.
    Women as collectivists maybe,but society has pushed it that way forever.
    Men as collectivists maybe,and again society has pushed it that way forever.
    My point is finger pointing and blaming isn’t going to change anything. Both sexes taking action to ensure all aspects of issues are dealt with will.

    • Hi Cyrus,

      If women want to “serve” as cannon fodder/enforcers of the federal government’s boner for world hegemony alongside men, they are welcome to do so, as far as I am concerned.

      • “If women want to ‘serve’” – of course. But no one, male or female, should be forced to serve. Abolish the Selective Service Commission.
        The 13th Amendment should be understood to forbid the ‘owning’ of others by all, including the gunvermin, not just private citizens.

  2. This article is complete BS and doesn’t really speak of the modern tempo of America. The writer simply wishes to point fingers and people that aren’t even alive. How convenient. Women value their own safety over freedom, which means they don’t deserve either. Women will not fight for their own freedom or safety for that matter. They’ll call upon the masses of white knight manginas to do their dirty work. You can’t even have a conversation with them unless you are willing to admit everything they say is 100% right. America is full of women-children that depend on manginas to take care of them. The ones that “take care of themselves” mostly do so with our tax dollars subsidizing their wasteful spending of clothing and cosmetics. They believe this type of wasteful spending will land them a man so they can financial drain him and move on to the next victim. In short, women still have a long way to go before we will even consider them adults.

    • I take care of myself and my children with money I earn from owning and operating my own businesses. Making blanket statements like “the ones who take care of themselves do so with government assistance” allows the belief that all women do this and there are certainly those of us who don’t. I never married nor sought child support from their father. I think collectivism is a concept that works but no one gender takes to it more naturally than the other. I had my children and its my responsibility to take care of them. He or the government shouldn’t have to.

  3. It has always been a curiosity to me that women in general do not seem interested in discussing the principles of liberty. Check any message board devoted to the topic, including Eric’s, and the overwhelming number of participants are male. What the hell is going on there? Part of the answer is that men can be aggressive shits and that turns off lots of women but that can’t be all of it.

    Any ideas?

    • “overwhelming number of participants are male. What the hell is going on there?”

      Every man that’s ever had a girlfriend or wife has seen this at work. A man and a woman debate something. A man makes a logical argument. If a woman can refute it, the debate continues, if she can not, she retreats. You can see this at work in largely women’s forums, where men are banned if they produce an argument women can not refute, regardless of how tactful or polite they are in offering that viewpoint. Go to and see for yourself.

      The Brits passed a law recently that arguing with your wife is domestic abuse. Men and women have argued since time began, then made up and went to bed, but now it’s abuse. Kind of ties in with my point.

  4. That women are collectivists goes without question.
    Women value safety, comfort and niceness – men value independence and freedom. The instincts of males and females have always been at odds, and the current political correctness is brought about by the fact that women outnumber men at the ballot box, so they vote for political opportunists and morons to ensure their safety and comfort.

    That men are denied freedom in this climate, that they get divorce raped by judges in the form of outrageous alimony and child support is just par for the course – the transfer of wealth from men to women.

    No worries though, nothing lasts forever. This nanny state, cradle to grave bs, stifles men’s innovations, stifles their drive when they realize they’re only gonna get financially raped, so they kick back, work part time, enjoy life, and stop producing. The economy goes off a cliff when men no longer support society, there’s no money to support the life long nanny schemes women desire and it all comes crashing down. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no feminists in hard times, so all advantage swings to men, and the whole cycle repeats itself in time. Bust out a cold one, and enjoy.

    • Hi Alex,

      “That women are collectivists goes without question.”

      Well, I question it – because it’s a blanket generalization. Women – in general – may be more inclined to security over individual liberty; more risk averse, more group-minded. But (and here I am hopefully stating the obvious) there are countless men who are just as inclined (or even more inclined) toward collectivism. In fact, if most men were not collectivists, then collectivism would never have become the dominant social-political institution it has in fact become. Who were the leading luminaries of collectivist thought?

      The reality is most people – of both sexes – are collectivists.

      Men are not denied freedom by women. Collectivist-minded authoritarian men and women deny each others’ freedom.

      And ours, too.

      • We’ll have to agree to disagree, Eric, because every thing I’ve seen in life tells me that women are collectivists – I’ll add that they’re genetically wired that way, because of the need for women with young kids to have access to others labor. That’s always been the purpose of marriage: a man gets access to a woman’s reproductive resources to raise his own children, and a woman gets access to a man’s ability to produce more than enough to support her and her kids during pregnancy and those first 5 or so years when her ability to produce is limited. Only difference is that now many women rely on the state to be the supportive partner, rather than a particular man, and so collectivist laws get passed to further that aim.

        Certainly you can lump at least half, or maybe even more of the men in the collectivist category these days, but you asked “Are women collectivists?” rather than “What percentage of the population are now collectivists?”

        Still, just by the fact of their numerical superiority at the ballot box, women could change the world for more personal freedom and less collectivism if they chose to do so, and prove me wrong. How?

        By voting to do away with the police state apparatus that surrounds us. One could say it brings ‘safety’, but it does not foster personal freedom.

        By voting to do away with the welfare state for those who are purposely scamming the system, as well as for illegals. But they won’t do that, because they value that safety net, even though this country is essentially bankrupt.

        By attacking ridiculous political correctness laws and hiring quotas. But they don’t, because it’s not nice and because they serve collectivist theories that we’re all the same.
        For example, due to upper body strength men just make better fire fighters – but quotas and political correctness force departments to hire women and put them on fire crews. I’ve even heard one politician in my town say that, “Yes, women might not be able to carry people out of a fire on their shoulders, but they can drag them out.” Really? You’re going to make a case that when a building is burning down a husky, 150lb woman can evacuate a burning building of 200lb men by dragging them if they pass out from smoke inhalation? This applies to any number of jobs – and in a day and age when more women than men are graduating college, you still need hiring quotas for them?

        I could go on, but you get my point. This nanny state we’re living in serves women’s needs more than men, both through financial support from the government, the amount spent on health care for women vs men, and the laws favoring women over men in divorce, employment, education, etc… And they won’t go away, because they favor the female imperative, although as I’ve said above, at least 50% of the men are also collectivists as well.

        I’m not looking forward to the economic crash that’s likely, because it will be awful for everyone, but it will force change, like it or not.

  5. Some would argue that the seeds of authoritarianism are sown in the cradle. If women by and large control the cradle then who sows the seeds of authoritarian tendencies? Men or women?

    • That’s the point. Do we helplessly stay within the traditional confines of political culture, or do we break out of that paradigm and change it for the better?

      If the seeds of authoritarianism are sown in the cradle (and I do not argue otherwise) what is to stop those of us — women and men — who believe in freedom and self-rule, and the cardinal principle of no one has the right to initiate harm and violence against another or their property from sowing those seeds in the cradles of our children?

      Why must we concede the seeds of what it means to lead a human life to those who would rule us? Is it so unimportant an issue that it should be left “by and large” to women? Is education something reserved for men to do outside the home, in forums like this one and the rest of the media and academia, among those who have already been hopelessly planted with the weed idea that authoritarianism is both right and “our nature”? Do men have no business participating in seeing to it the cradle is sown with the seeds of liberty rather than the weeds of authoritarianism?

      If your underlying contention is that authoritarianism springs from women who control the cradle, that men are helpless and must accept their fate to be ruled or rule others, then it’s women’s fault men are authoritarian, and there ain’t a thing men can do about it? Women are the criminals and men are their victims?

      Oh, waahhhn. Kill all the women and we’ll have peace and freedom!

      A parenting team sowing those seeds of liberty and living the example is much better than leaving it “by and large” to women. We can do this. We obviously are not programmed irrevocably to forever surrender to authoritarianism and sow only those seeds in the cradle. It’s a choice. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 😉


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here