I recall, some years ago, encountering an article asking why there were not more Libertarian Feminists. The discussion devolved into various rationales and rationalizations for and against Feminism. Which, to me, runs contrary to the Libertarian ethos. The core of Libertarian ideology is the NAP the Non-Aggression-Principle. That in any interaction the party that initiates force is always in the wrong. So the question becomes does Feminism initiate force? The answer is both yes and no.

Feminism, and Feminist causes are often funded by taxpayer money extracted by force to support an ideology. That goes against the NAP. But can there be a Libertarian Feminism that does not rely on state extortion for funding? The answer is yes. But then the question becomes would such a feminism appeal to the Libertarian ethos? Or more does such a Feminism appeal to the Libertarian ethos? Now we are in a question of sociology.

Well since we are in sociology I must go into demographics. In my country (the US. I will be localized in this because international concerns are beyond the scope of what I may interrogate) less than 20% of women identify as Feminist. Even less when given a general population rather than gender-specific demographic. So let us be generous and say 15% of Americans identify as Feminist. I do not think it unreasonable to assume that 2/3rds of them are also Democrats. So of the 5% of Americans that are not-Democrat would 1% be Libertarian? Probably not.

And here I must leave statistics and return to ideology and more importantly why individuals hold certain ideologies. And again I must assert that there is nothing in the NAP that runs contrary to Feminism. For that matter there is nothing in the NAP that runs contrary to socialism. I feel a disturbance in the force. As though a billion An-Caps were triggered and then suddenly silenced. Should a group of free individuals freely decide to become Socialists and build a community that did not demand support from those who disagree, as a Libertarian I would have no objection.

My argument to Christians has always been the same. Libertarianism is fully accepting of any religion that believes in a god so powerful that he does not need the assistance of the legislature. A feminism that held the same restraint would have no contradiction with Libertarianism. In a way Libertarians offer the biggest of big-tent political philosophies. All are welcome with only the caveat that they do not believe they should be allowed to impose their view on others who disagree. You can be a Libertarian Racist or a Libertarian Vegan just so long as you do not insist on a racist or vegan state. So there is nothing in Libertarianism that is inherently opposed to Feminism.

Which in no way answers the question, “Why are there not more Libertarian Feminists?” I asked this question some years ago and think I may have finally stumbled into an answer .Jonathan Haidt took a moral survey of political affiliation. The results are equally interesting and entirely mundane. Liberals scored higher on valuing fairness and avoiding harm although it should be noted that Conservatives scored highest on fair rules rather than fair outcomes. Which any student of political science could have told you. What is more interesting is that Conservatives had an entire set of values that are minimal to non-existant among liberals. Respect for authority, In-group loyalty, and Sanctity were strongly supported in Conservatives and mostly ignored by Liberals. Haidt’s model explains the left-right divide in some interesting ways. In public abortion is debated as a harm argument. Harm to the woman vs. harm to the fetus. But in the conservative mind it is not so much as a harm argument as a Sanctitiy argument which is, more or less, invisible to liberal morality. They simply do not speak the same moral language.

Eventually it was pointed out that his study was stuck in the left-right dynamic. Because we Libertarians are always left out in this sort of thing. So he compensated by adding Libertarians to his study and the results were unsurprising to anyone who has attended a local LP meeting.

Libertarians scored both higher and lower than either end of the political spectrum in very specific areas. Libertarians scored higher on social liberty and economic liberty than either Conservatives or Liberals. On ingroup, Authority, Loyalty, and Sanctity (the Conservative Trinity) their scores were nearly identical to those of liberals. Yet on the Liberal value of Harm they scored even lower than conservatives. It was the divergence in more standard social concepts that caught my attention. Of course Libertarians scored higher on rational cognitive function (don’t get excited it takes a majority to win). They also scored lower on almost every emphatic trait than either Conservatives or Democrats. Witness the party of Mr. Spock. “Your love of family and country seems irrational Captain” (yes they even scored lowest on loving mom and apple pie).

Which is where I come back to the question of why there are not many Libertarian feminists. I don’t know that there has ever been a moral study of Feminists on Haidt’s spectrum. But I can imagine what the results would be. Most Feminist arguments in popular culture come from an appeal to harm Libertarians least significant moral value. Ideas like ‘Rape Culture’ essentially appeal to harm avoidance. It does not help that our Vulcan Libertarians do not easily fall for the one in five rape rate bandied about that is readily dismissed after moderate logical interrogation. Or micro-aggressions that can only appeal to those who are hyper-sensitive to the disgust reaction. Another factor where Libertarians score lower than any other political ideology. Grossing out a Libertarian is a herculean task.

In fact at times Feminism has been the greatest test of my Libertarianism. In DongleGate, “Adria Richards has the right to freely express herself. And should that man’s employer choose to fire him based upon public reaction to that expression it is their right.” Then ShirtGate, “Clearly Matt Taylor’s accomplishments overshadow a mere piece of clothing. But the right of those in the public square to discuss his choice in shirts is valid and should be upheld.” Then Tim Hunt, “Whilst the reports of Sir Hunt’s remarks are grossly exaggerated and mis-attributed we must hold faith that in the free market of ideas the truth will win out.”

It is troubling that this should become a moral quandary for me. I once worked with the ACLU to assure that the KKK were allowed their right to protest. When we won our campaign I happily walked right out and joined the counter-protest and expressed my loathing of their racist ideology (which I still feel they have every right to express. I prefer my racists loud and obvious because it makes them easy to identify). I think that, low as the bar may be, Feminism can uniquely engage the extremely low standards of the Libertarian’s stunted disgust reaction. Had nature conspired to produce the most perfect example of an ideology that, while never violating the NAP, could produce the most harm (another low-scorer for Libertarians) it would be modern feminism.

So while there is no inherent reason for a Libertarian to not be a Feminist there is a whole host of essentially moral objections that the behavior of Feminists will invoke in the sort of person who becomes a Libertarian. There is a small sliver of a silver lining to this cloud. Feminism as expressed by Christina Hoff Summers who relies on very rational statistical data-driven points does not have these problems with the Libertarian moral compass (I will forgive her here for being a Democrat). Similarly the Feminism of Steven Pinker seems morally acceptable when I present it to other Libertarians. Cathy Young writes for Reason and seems generally accepted for the same reasons as Pinker or Summers. The Libertarian mind is quite open to Feminism when it is phrased not as an emotional appeal against some imaginary threat but a statistical outcome of logical progressions. “Your insistence that gender dimorphism must result in antiquated social structures seems illogical Captain.” Libertarian Spock agrees. And feels quite comfortable with the outcome.