[Preface: On looking over what I have written below, it occurs to methat readers may think I am either being humorous or just dissinglibertarians. NO! I am being perfectly serious in pointing out a hugeproblem for people whom I generally like and respect.]

For decades I have known libertarians, some quite well. As a group theyare highly intelligent and articulate w/ interesting, provocative andoften persuasive, ideas. Many are computer geeks.They are almost all male and often very lonely. The loneliness isbecause the vast majority of females of comparable intelligence andinterests will not give them the time of day. Note: I do not mean thesewomen disagree w/ them or dislike them. The women consider themuntouchables.

Recently I did an informal survey of married libertarians.Overwhelmingly they are married to women who had no great politicalinterest before meeting their husbands. After years with thosepolitically interested (even obsessed) husbands, these women are stillnot deeply politically interested.

Concomitantly, I know one of the few female libertarians. She is quite acatch: in her middle 20s, attractive, intelligent, talented, successfuland articulate. Her current lover is a man who is totally apolitical.Though her work brings her into constant contact w/ them, she has NEVER dated a libertarian. "They are all oddballs."

My concern here is not social but political, Libertarians are generallysmart, often very smart. If they want to be taken seriously libertariansmust stop their incessant and useless fantasizing about politicalmatters and begin devising ways to appeal to politically interestedwomen. For why should men who can't even get in the pants of apolitically interested woman be taken seriously in a nation whoseelectorate is 51% female?

What inspired me to start thinking about this is the apparent fear inthe gun community that the McDonald litigation is part of an effort bylibertarians to achieve their agenda through the judiciary. But if thereis such an effort it is spectacularly useless and doomed to failure. Judicial decisions are established by S Ct justices. But S Ct justicesare appointed by presidents. A group of men who cannot even get in thepants of politically interested women are never going to be able toachieve their agenda through the judiciary.

[NOTE: Readers might ask what I mean by "politically interested women."For a short (if simplistic) answer, just view a video of the lastDemocratic presidential convention. You will see hundreds of womenscreaming, waving signs and cavorting around just like the men. Dittofor the last Republican presidential convention. Though they might notadmit it, each of those women would consider marrying "the right man"even if he was of the opposite political party. NONE of them would givea libertarian male sand if they met him on a beach.Unless and until libertarians figure some way to appeal to women,libertarianism will continue to be the political equivalent of the FlatEarth Society.]