Sunday, July 28, 2013

A Note About the Weaker Sex

There is an odd article out at, it is written by the self-described libertarians, Bonnie Kristian, Julie Borowski, and Cathy Reisenwitz.

It is a critique of a column by Fred Reed that appeared at The column attempts to grapple with the differences between men and women. This attempt seems to bother the ladies and their article offers, pretty much, a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal. And, although it is scientifically established that women get a lot less in terms of testosterone while in the womb than men do and that the testosterone that men get destroys parts of male brains, parts that remain intact in females, the ladies are unmerciful in their attack on Reed. They label what Reed writes as wildly misogynist, collectivist, grossly unreasonable, strongly anti-individualist, absurd and  preposterous.

Being a male and having part of my brain apparently destroyed in womb, I must confess, I understand most of what Reed has put down on paper and why. Bottom line, because a lot of the touchy feely part of our brain has been destroyed, we often really don't get what the hell women are talking about. Further, there is a difference between the way men and women like to socialize, probably because of the brain destruction in males. Reed touches on these differences.

But, I want to skip over most of the specific critiques made against Reed and take up the last one. The ladies write:
Reed also demonstrates a collectivist mindset when discussing women in the military. He argues that “the physical weakness of women is only the beginning” of the problems with integrating women into front line units, a statement which seems to be intentionally provocative because it is absurd to generalize all women as physically weak. No one would dare call tennis star Serena Williams or MMA fighter Ronda Rousey “weak” to their faces.
First off, Reed isn't displaying a  "collectivist mindset," when he says women are physically weak. He is making a generalization. Big difference. Collectivism is about the method by which property is controlled---not about generalizations. To say a certain class has a characteristic in common is a generalization. Reed is making a generalization.

Now, there may be some women on the tail end of the strength curve that are stronger than most men, but I don't think Reed is out of line by generalizing that most women are weak, relative to men. Weak is a relative term. Women are weaker than men, both are weaker than grizzly bears. I have no idea who Ronda Rousey, that the ladies reference, is and I am not about to spend anytime googling her. She may be some kind of tail end female freak that is 6 feet 3 inches who can bench press 250 lbs and slaps men around all day long for kicks, but she would be a freak. And if Serena Williams is so strong, why doesn't she take on men tennis players instead of only women?

Men in general are much stronger than women. That's a fact. The anecdotal evidence tells us that most women understand this. Travel the New York City subway system after midnight and it is a damn men's club. Most women know it is too dangerous for a female to be down there late at night. That's why they are not down there. It is women's decision to stay away, no one is stopping them. They know they don't have the strength to fight off most men.

Somehow, I don't see the ladies who have  authored this anti-Reed column as the types that would venture into the NYC subway system alone late at night. Frankly, I don't see them as the type that could fight off even an average middle age man who is already beyond his peak physical strength. There should be nothing surprising about this. They are average women in terms of female physique and strength.

Julie Borowski, Bonnie Kristian, and Cathy Reisenwitz

But, the ladies go on to say:
Calling women weak is no way to spread the message of liberty.
Well, being in touch with reality is a good way to get respect for your ideas and attempting to promote the idea that women are not weak is not gaining points on the reality scale. In general, relative to men, they are weak.

In summary, I think Reed has it right, overall. But I also think I have written too much already on this subject and am going to leave Reed right here and let him fend for himself the rest of the way against the ladies. Good luck, Fred. I'll be at the bar.


  1. Making an arguement in support of more troops killing and dieing for government also isnt libertarian.

    Stupid feminists.

  2. Daniel, you know what's a great way to distract from the problems inherent in our aggressive foreign policy? To focus everyone's attention on the gender of the troops instead of what those troops are doing and why.

    And you know what's a great way to distract from how screwed up our government-run education system is? To blame all the problems caused by government on the presence of women.

    These are the types of obfuscating arguments that neoconservatives, progressives, and statists of all stripes use to divert attention from real proposals to cut government at home and abroad. And apparently, they're also the type of arguments now published on LRC and EPJ.

    Because, you see, we DIDN'T argue for more troops killing and dying for government. We argued against it — check our original piece. It's all there.

    Reed and Wenzel, by contrast, ignored the issue entirely. Their primary concern isn't that we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and all 160+ military bases around the world. Their concern is that everyone in combat in those places be male. Not much of a libertarian foreign policy goal, if you ask me.

    Ultimately, in each of the three major topics Reed addressed — primary education, secondary education, and the military — women are not the problem.

    Government is.

    And until Reed, Wenzel, et al. are willing to address that claim instead of nitpicking about how much I can deadlift, I will continue to fail to take them seriously as supporters of liberty.

    1. Bonnie Babe,

      As I would have predicted after reading Bob's comments about your article, you have missed Fred's point like a heat-seeking missile in the Arctic.

      I shan't make the attempt at specific explanation since you haven't the defective male mind to perceive it. Suffice it to say, those of us who read and enjoy Fred's articles understand the truths he espouses; said truths having been tucked, as parables, in between a skillfully-planted tongue and a cheek of rare and precious hilarity.

      My advice, if I were inclined to so offer, would be simple: Take yourself just a tad less seriously and grow a funny bone. You may actually enjoy life with the rest of us, really!

      Fred is a jewel. There is nothing namby-pamby, weak-kneed, or politically correct about him. Thank Goodness. He draws from the hip and shoots straight with no excuses. How refreshing for a change from forked-tongued dis-colored politicians (take your pick--red or blue--we're toast either way) and pundits with their twisted sense of reality. Chicks may not dig Fred but guys understand and enjoy his rollicking ways and manly demeanor.

      Now lest you think me an oaf or ogre: I open doors for my wife (of 38 years, thank you) and assist her as she sits. I do this not because she is weak but because I love and respect her dignity and strength and such small actions pay tribute to her amazing compassion and empathy with our children and grandchildren. These are attributes I do not posses in abundance. We are different. Fred was simply pointing out that fact. I love the difference. I think some French guy once said it better than that. (Come on...that was a joke. I know Fred got it.)

      It is because women tend not to love the difference that we run into trouble, I think, but then, what do I know? I'm defective.

    2. Michael boy,

      Probably women object because of the stereotyping. There is no "most" or "many" behind statements like you make such as "It is because women tend not to love the difference that we run into trouble". You aren't even creative, you are merely regurgitating what you read from others...because they never really say anything unique.

      Of course MOST women know that women and men are different. But even so, people like you and Fred seem to think there are ONLY TWO categories: men and women. Not so....because each of these categories also has categories. Humanity is MUCH MORE complex than you seem to think. In Old times, out on the farm there were not many choices for either men or women and hopefully we don't have to go back to that.

      Denying women choices in their lives, like if they want to marry or if they don't, or if they want to be a homemaker versus a computer programmer is pretty sick and twisted. That's what the fight is about for women. It's not about being the SAME as a man. THAT is the problem that men are fighting. That is your fight within YOURSELF that is going on. I sure as hell don't want to be just like a man (SICK!!)...but I sure as hell want the opportunities open for women to choose from.
      Looks like they are not posting comments like mine. The other one was not published and this one may not either.

  3. "Reed and Wenzel, by contrast, ignored the issue entirely. Their primary concern isn't that we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and all 160+ military bases around the world. Their concern is that everyone in combat in those places be male. Not much of a libertarian foreign policy goal, if you ask me"

    I can't speak for Fred Reed, but that is a gross mischaracterization of Bob's position or views. He has consistently advocated against military intervention abroad, at home, and anywhere else in the known universe.

  4. Bonnie - so we can discuss nothing other than government and its dysfunction until we are rid of that problem?! This could be a long and tedious period. But why do you even care what Fred or Bob think about gender issues?

  5. These three are girls not women. They speak for girls not women. That could explain why they seem to be so easily offended by Reed's piece and the dramatic tone of the "response".

    I read it and thought it funny and partially true. But then, I am a product of segregated education and have raised 7 sons with the greatly appreciated assistance of a few strong male role models./

  6. Bonnie, instead of argueing that women could be on the front lines killing and be killed along side men you should be argueing that no one should be on the frontlines killing and being killed.

    Your position is pointless because the gender doesnt matter at all. If youre argueing in favor of women on the frontlines then youre argueing for people killing and dieing for government.

  7. I didnt read your piece and i wont. Feminism is nonsense.

    1. It shows. Instead of actually making counter-arguments based on something you actually read, you prefer to regurgitate what a so-called expert say. Extremely bright

  8. Wow - the libertarian movement has come a long way. Humorless, feminist trolls have joined our ranks. Talking about how we mustn't poke fun and make jokes for the sake of the movement.

    These feminist thought police deserve nothing but ridicule and scorn. What is the difference between these Bella Abzugs of the libertarian movement and some critical theory professor saying we shouldn't use certain words because they are raaacist, misogynist, homophobic, etc etc

  9. Yes, but if you don't want your wife, sisters, daughters to embrace it, you need to prepare arguments against it.

  10. Just to let you know, Ronda Rousey looks pretty feminine for an MMA fighter. She's also 5'6" and 135 pounds.

    It really has nothing to do with the important stuff in your article, but just saying :)

  11. I am absolutely astonished that Julie, who is usually well informed, evidently believes the hateful lie, promulgated by Mary Koss and Ms. Magazine, that 1 in 4 women are victims of sexual violence.

  12. I'm not going to be so nice here. Fred Reed is simply and old saggy bag of a sexist. The kind that's slowly dying out. It's not just in one of his articles but in many of them that are directed hits at women. He consistently needs to PROVE that men are better, and bases it on the same age old models that men created for themselves. After reading his hate, which many other men around the Net have taken up (it's like this massive Hate Women movement that could actually prove to be quite dangerous in the near future to Females of all ages), it's quite obvious that his intent is to degrade women and "put them back in their place", which we all know is the Kitchen and Bedroom. Fred bases all his bullshit on what Fred is angry about. Of course, if women stick up for themselves they are accused of being "feminists", "ugly", or worse. And so women stay silent.
    Men are simply blaming women for their own failures in a changing world. The only "Pussification" of men is caused by men themselves. What is a man anyways? That seems to be the crux of the problem...nobody seems to fricking know. Most these old men say a man is someone who "protects" their family and "provides" for them. We all know this is a fairy tale, just like the bull shit fairy tales fed to women to think that there is some perfect guy out there, a prince.

    I don't care that men or women say Women are physically weaker than men, because for the most part women just cannot lift as much and generally do not have the muscle mass, and are many times smaller frames (my own frame consists of very tiny hands which are not suitable for many of the tools needed in combat). That does not make women "weaker", though. But men have to continue to PROVE they are superior and DIFFERENT than women. That is Fred's entire agenda.

    So, guys, listen carefully...we all know you are different than don't have to spend your life degrading women to prove that fact and that you are a fact it makes you look like a WEAK pussy when you do.

    1. Unfortunately, such white knighting-the last sentence in particular-is rather typical of an individual who has consumed feminist rhetoric without question. It is a sort of mental weakness that seems systemic among many.

  13. I lament that I even have to acknowledge an argument that is totally absent from the above thread: why has emotional strength and endurance not been mentioned? There are different kinds of strength. While men may be stronger when it comes to brute strength, women have different kinds of strength, such as the strength to sustain emotional pain and endure childbirth. Men and women are different, but equal. It is disgusting that this debate still exists in the 21st century.