This is a guest post by Angela Dills, the Gimelstob-Landry Distinguished Professor of Regional Economic Development at Western Carolina University
Clearly, climate is an issue and one that should be addressed by everyone. Libertarians want less government and fewer laws, which means that civil society – communities, organizations, families – needs to take on roles that government has taken on. That means using our influence to dissuade others from poor behavior: holding ourselves to high standards of behavior, critiquing harmful and rude behavior out loud, restraining those who persist in poor behavior from opportunities to do so.
So why aren’t more women committed to libertarianism?
Women are pros at building and maintaining civil society. Women still complete a disproportionate share of household chores for their own families, giving up their leisure and market work time to raise children and care for elderly parents. Women are more likely to attend religious services regularly. Women are more likely to volunteer. I presume that women engage in other community building activities more often, too, even when it’s not well measured in surveys. Neighbor had surgery? A woman probably baked that casserole or organized that meal train to bring over for dinner. Spouse is sick? A woman probably took your kids out for the day to give you time to rest. Christmas and New Years’ cards, birthday greetings, celebration planning – all those interactions that maintain connections among friends and family are more often made by women.
Consider a thought experiment of what might change as government shrunk. Certainly, I expect entrepreneurs to deliver some services – more private security, more private schools, health care services produced and priced for lower income households, and the like. And, given the literature on crowd out (here or here or here, for example), I expect philanthropists to expand their charitable endeavors when government reduces its transfer activities. Given opportunities to retain more of their earned income, generous people in our communities would give more, and more effectively, to help the less fortunate.
Less government increases the need for civil society in all its forms: charitable organizations of all sorts, religious institutions, civic institutions (like Rotary International), community groups, professional organizations, and more. One hesitation some might have about the feasibility of less government is whether and how much groups like these will step up to help the less fortunate. And, like many courses of action that liberty-lovers advance, it is impossible to say for sure what will emerge. Spontaneous order is annoying like that.
But women know this: they know they’ll step into the gaps. Cooking extra to bring to the neighbor in need. Organizing a coat drive for the trailer park residents as winter approaches. Checking on the elderly neighbor for a chat and to make sure her heat functions, then sending an older child over to shovel snow from her driveway. Filling the Little Free Pantries and Little Free Libraries around town. Women are the backbone of civil society. Women build the trust and the community and care for their friends and neighbors. We know these transfers of time, money, energy, and love can happen in a free society. Because they happen every day.
I suspect many women understand that, unless more men step up to the community-building plate, that less government means more unpaid, and too often unrecognized, work for women. I suspect some turn away from smaller government ideas, not eager for more of this load of worrying about and caring for those in need.
For me, seeing people care for their friends and neighbors reassures me that good people in our communities already work to help the less fortunate. Just in our small town, we have a woman who collects items for new foster children (and others) who may arrive to new homes with only the clothes on their backs; a couple who helps the homeless and nearly homeless find or keep their homes, providing emergency supplies and assistance; angel trees to provide Christmas gifts for children whose parents might not be able to afford them.
There are organizations and businesses run by people who have taken their passion for their community and love for their neighbors, gotten to know the specific needs, and found ways to collaborate to meet them. There are friendship networks and support systems that look out for changing needs and work to meet them, efficiently and effectively providing assistance in ways government welfare programs don’t. I mean, when’s the last time the Department of Social Services baked a casserole for an overwhelmed family?
In a society with less government, more of that work may need to be done. I firmly believe that local knowledge allows private charitable behavior to more efficiently and effectively meet the needs of the less fortunate. I hope, though, that men will join women in taking on these tasks instead of waiting for women to manage even more of the caring.
Thanks to Andrew J. Cohen and Sean Mulholland for conversations about the above.
 Not saying men don’t do these things. They do! You can see it in the surveys on volunteering. Men are just less likely to do so. But it happens, both formally and informally. One small example: when my husband was sick recently, his friend Bill picked up our energetic dog every afternoon to exercise her. Thanks Bill!
2 thoughts on “Why aren’t more women Libertarians?”
Comments are closed.