Isn’t this Roderick’s call?

Um, considering these are the same compliments you use to describe Herr Hoppe (who may be gentle, nice. decent and sincere in person to his friends but is certainly none of those things in print when writing about “human trash” and other undersireables), that’s sort of damning with faint praise, isn’t it?

And how is the claim “The death of individualism and the rise of collectivism was driven, in large part, by female participation in the franchise.” anything but an instance of blaming women?

“Mere” sexism, yes. I think you’ve sufficiently answered the title question of this thread.

“If you wish to spout sexist rot blaming women for a fall from a mythical individualist paradise, then I will agree that you ought to have the political right to do so. But please, if you wish to do this, do not pose as an avatar of reason and individualism.”

Mr. Virkkala is a gentle, nice, decent, sincere guy. His comments were not sexist and he did not blame women as you say. Your comments are unfair.

“Libertarianism, you can have. It promises Earth and Heaven, but except to its charmed few its words are only promises, and its philosophical credit card doesn’t clear.”

When people speak in metaphors and use purple prose the danger of inclarity usually lurks. Libertarianism doesn’t promise heaven and earth, whatever this means. As for your first sentence–you can say you don’t want libertarianism, but either you are in favor of, or opposed to, aggression. If you are opposed to it, you are a libertarian. If you are not–then you are just siding with the criminals, and it’s a bit rich of you to get on a high horse about mere sexism.

“She disagreed with the movement for women’s suffrage, which demanded the right of women to vote. In her essay “Woman Suffrage”, she ridicules the idea that women’s involvement would infuse the democratic state with a more just orientation: “As if women have not sold their votes, as if women politicians cannot be bought!”[151] She agreed with the suffragists’ assertion that women are equal to men, but disagreed that their participation alone would make the state more just. “To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers.”[152]“

- Get emotional over fights, so they can’t have a principled stance against war
- Just too domineering (especially over women) They love treating others like their own property (Especially when sending them to war)
- They are too arrogant to lose, so they’ll always demand subsidies (businesses, tariffs, etc)
- They like to get into groups and gang up on each other, so they are not capable of respecting minorities
- They like to bully and boss others around, which is why there are incapable of abolishing government regulations
- They are more emotionally attached to loyalty and solidarity, instead of liberty for all, so they can’t ever understand libertarianism
but…

As a libertarian Man, I object and take some offense to this line of thinking (and I would guess that some other men here would too). But how is this line of thinking different from the blog comments at Matt’s YAL blog about the lack of libertarian women? Makes more sense when you put the shoe on the other foot no? (or is this my meathead man thinking going on again?)