Check out this article, written in response to this article at Screwie Lewie’s website. Quoting from the latter:

Resegregation by sex, which would be both cheap and easy, is probably vital to the future of the United States. The bright little boys now being pushed under become, especially after the male IQ spurt in adolescence, the phenomenally intelligent young men who found Intel, Google, Dell Computer, Microsoft and, perhaps less crucially, Facebook.

Fortunately, this attitude is not widely shared by libertarians.

Here’s a related anecdote: I once attended an academic conference in which pretty much all attendees were libertarian. They were doing an author-meets-critics session on my book The Ethics of Voting. One of the critics complained–I shit you not–that in that book, I tended to use the feminine pronoun rather than the masculine pronoun when referring to unspecified or hypothetical people in examples. Here’s the quotation from his commentary:

Third, and finally, Brennan’s argument is bizarrely limited.  While he makes many interesting (and a few fantastic) points about politics, civic virtue, and voting, it’s a pity that his study confines itself to female voters – and to female candidates, surgeons, or car mechanics (emphasis added in quotations below):

• “A person might pay her debts, but lack civic virtue” (p. 49)

• “By fixing cars, she [the car mechanic] is helping to create and sustain… the common good” (p. 51)

• “For a citizen to exercise civic virtue through private activities, it is not sufficient that she contributes to the common good” (p. 59)

• “…for a person to possess civic virtue, just how strong must her motivation to promote the common good be?” (p. 60)

• “when…a person abstains from voting…she lacks certain… character traits” (p. 66)

• “if a person is a surgeon or a voter, she should be a good one” (p. 69)

• “if a voter abides by [voting] Principle 1, then she does nothing wrong by selling her vote.” (p. 137)

There is nothing inherently wrong to limiting a political and ethical study to female voters and economic agents, but it is rather limiting.  For example, an estimated 70 million women voted in the 2010 presidential election (for an estimated 60 million men); women thus represented slightly more than 50% of voters .  To neglect the other 50% in a book on the ethics of voting seems rather narrow.  The numbers drop even more when we look at female politicians, surgeons and car mechanics.  Perhaps Brennan is merely being precious or kowtowing to the politically correct legions at Brown University and the philosophy profession; but I honestly doubt that Robert Nozick and Philip Pettit also limited their writings to women, although Brennan quotes them as such.

Not only did the author write that, but he actually read that, out loud, in front of a number of women in the audience, including undergraduate students. I shit you not.