Feminists Make Great Free Market Capitalists

And their influence in the market is going to keep growing.

If you put a bunch of people who identify as feminists into a room with a bunch of people who identify as free market capitalists, they would likely have some strained conversations. At best. They just don't roll with the same crowds. This is a shame, because feminists are actually quite savvy at operating within the voluntary mechanisms of the free market system.

Unfortunately, voices in the feminist movement, like philosopher Nancy Fraser, superstitiously fear women utilizing free market forces. Fraser explains that she wants a “more egalitarian, just and free” world, but it would be a “cruel twist of fate” for “women's liberation [to] become entangled in a dangerous liaison with neoliberal efforts to build a free-market society.” She is convinced that the rise of female entrepreneurs and individualism cannot be squared with other feminist values, like social advancement. Though vague about how to otherwise actually advance a social agenda, she assures us that the first step is to somehow destroy all links with the free market.

To be fair, feminists (and other identity-political groups) have allied with progressive proponents of big government not without reason. They have found vindication through the Violence Against Women Act and numerous pieces of anti-discrimination and reproductive rights legislation. And, it's hard to blame them for not jumping into the arms of capitalism's libertarian advocates, who have a documented problem selling their brand to women.

But, feminists do have reason to recognize that it's unwise to put too much faith in politics. After all, their opponents are wholly capable of affecting legislation in ways feminists don't like. And, this group has additional hurdles of limited influence, since women make up only 18 percent of Congress, the Obama Administration has a gender gap, and Republicans can be outright hostile. When push comes to shove, feminists ignore these problematic institutions and take their fight right to the free market.

Let's look at a recent example. Burt's Bees, owned by Clorox, sells a product, Güd Vanilla Flame Body Butter. Until November 14, it bore a label that read “Let the catcalling commence.”

Within hours of discovering this marketing slogan, non-profit and women's advocacy group Hollaback! began to agitate against the label. The group considers catcalling a form of street harassment and “the most common form of gender-based violence globally.” Hollaback! began a petition to get Burt's Bees to remove the statement about catcalling. The petition quickly garnered hundreds of signatures and the story spread organically through social media.

Burt's Bees replied that it would continue to sell the product and issued what the advocacy group deemed a “non-apology.” This prompted an even stronger backlash and a greater number of feminists took to Twitter to inform the company that they would boycott its products. The petition hit its 2,000 signature goal in no time.

The company took a hint, realized that it could lose a lot of money, and as the New York Observer highlights, issued a new apology and promised to relabel the product.

Feminists won a clear and direct victory without getting the long arm of the law involved. They showed their power through the marketplace and convinced one branch of a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation to stop advocating for what they saw as violence against women. Unlike any government-backed response, this cost virtually nothing and was concluded in a matter of days.

Compare this to another group that also all too often gets the short end of the political stick. The Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit against Urban Outfitters over products that the nation claimed were not only offensive (the clothing company labeled some patterned underwear as “Navajo”) but also violated their trademark. Several years later and countless dollars spent, no settlement has been reached. Taking one's problems to the government, though sometimes necessary, is often dicey. A positive outcome is never guaranteed, and corporations tend to have a great deal of money that they can pour into litigation.

The feminists' victory with Burt's Bees was not a fluke. Rather, it was a function of the market. And, it's a trend that is set to further empower this demographic. As Cathy Young recently noted for Reason, women control 60 percent of the wealth in the U.S. This gives them massive clout for swaying the way companies engage women. On top of this, as feminist website Jezebel points out, the market has even supplied the means for an easy way to boycott products with a smartphone application.

Even if the petition to change Burt's Bees had failed, a more responsive competitor would have emerged to meet the feminists' demands. This, too, is a function of the market. For every time Lego ignores the demand for girl-oriented toys that are empowering and come not exclusively in shades of pink, the company forfeits potential profits to more market-friendly companies like GoldieBlox. Every issue of Cosmo that promotes what readers see as unhealthy body image helps competitors like Verily magazine, which refuses to print photoshopped pictures of women.

This process does not have to be seen so negatively, either. This is not a war of attrition where every storefront must be haggled with. Although no coercive, binding, bureaucracy-bloated, or tax-heavy government entity is involved, corporations like Cisco dedicate resources to educating and advancing women in the technological professional realm in Saudi Arabia.

Businesses have an incentive to respond to their customers. We can cynically see this as nothing more than effective marketing and public relations tactics. Or, we can embrace the fact that corporations rely on us. They are willing to go to lengths, changing their products and messages, because we tell them to.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    The column doesn't support the headline.

  • Irish||

    "If current feminists changed 90% of their beliefs they'd make good free market capitalists" was a little too long and unwieldy.

  • Beowulf||

    That just about sums it up.

  • Beowulf||

    I meant the column having absolutely nothing to do with the headline...

  • JRS1001||

    Agreed

  • AReasonableMan||

    Sure it does. You just have to define "Great Free Market Capitalists" as people who are willing to use non-violent boycotts as a tactic in their campaign to make the market very, very unfree.

  • ||

    And to think that I actually went through the trouble of reading the article when I could've just read the first comment.

  • Irish||

    Why does Reason keep doing this? I agree that actual feminists whose primary goal is equality could very well be libertarians. But the term as it currently exists has been coopted by an authoritarian philosophy that would gladly see women dragged off in chains if it advanced the goal of the Total State.

    Then there's this:

    To be fair, feminists (and other identity-political groups) have allied with progressive proponents of big government not without reason. They have found vindication through the Violence Against Women Act and numerous pieces of anti-discrimination and reproductive rights legislation. And, it's hard to blame them for not jumping into the arms of capitalism's libertarian advocates, who have a documented problem selling their brand to women.

    You're giving them far too much credit. They didn't ally with progressives, they were infested with progressives. When progressives get involved in a group, they inevitably come to realize that they can't stand the idea of being in an organization with anyone who disagrees with them. As a result, people who might agree with progressive feminists on certain issues but are too far to the right for their taste are driven from the movement in a quest to maintain ideological purity.

    Don't pretend this is an issue of alliance. It's yet another example of progressives engaging in ideological cleansing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -When progressives get involved in a group, they inevitably come to realize that they can't stand the idea of being in an organization with anyone who disagrees with them. As a result, people who might agree with progressive feminists on certain issues but are too far to the right for their taste are driven from the movement in a quest to maintain ideological purity.

    Irish, while I am not disputing that this goes on, certainly it goes on even more with, say, conservative Republicans (RINOs?) and, alas, libertarians as much, if not more.

  • Irish||

    I vehemently disagree. That might happen to an extent, but the modern Republican party has far more diversity of thought than the Democrat party.

    Not only that, but Republican and libertarian groups have no issue making allies with people they disagree with politically. The NRA will gladly donate money to Democrats who are willing to protect gun rights.

    Do you want to know what Emily's List has as their mission statement? Google Emily's List. The very first link has this to say:

    Supporting pro-choice Democratic women running for congress and governor.

    Why should the fact that these women are Democrats be of any relevance? If a pro-choice Republican woman ran, why would they not support her? Because of the ideological purity I am talking about which simply does not exist anywhere on the modern right.

    I'd also say that leftists try to force out non-leftists even in non-political contexts. Look at what goes on with the suppression of libertarians and conservatives in the media and on college campuses. There is nothing like that occurring in organizations run primarily by non-leftists.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your evidence is pretty thin.

    First, your claim that there is less diversity of thought among Democrats strikes me as demonstrably incorrect. Even using, say, American Conservative Union ratings as criteria you will find that there is less deviation within the scores of GOP Senators and Representatives than their Democrat Party opposites. RINO hunting is something that occurs with a passion by the GOP base, 'DINO' hunting is something that occurs much less (the last time I even remember anything on this front was some 'net-roots' opposition to Blanche Lincoln).

    It is hard for me to think you have really been around libertarian organizations for very long to hear you underestimate the relentless drive for purity which abounds there. Most libertarians are aware of this and even joke about its debilitating effect on our movement.

    You are left with Emily's List, but of course many more influential organizations exist on the right to enforce ideological purity (Club for Growth?).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It appears the Emily's List has an annual revenue of 2 1/2 Million.

    http://www.manta.com/c/mmnhby2/emily-s-list

    Compare that to the (very) conservative Concerned Women for America with annual revenue of over 6 million yearly revenue.

    http://www.charitynavigator.or.....pt5rb4o5Ox

    It is likely you have never heard of the latter, since their silliness is of course not covered in conservative presses.

  • Irish||

    It is likely you have never heard of the latter, since their silliness is of course not covered in conservative presses.

    And they're not covered at all in the mainstream media. The idea that I get all my news from conservative presses is utterly ludicrous. Concerned Women for America has never been mentioned on CNN when I've been watching, whereas Emily's List is called on for comment with gleeful frequency.

    As for your statement about 'Dino hunting' that's largely because the Democrats have already been purged of all competing ideas.

    Colorado Democrats are currently getting butchered because they managed to delude themselves into thinking that they could run Colorado like New York City. On the other hand, New York and New Jersey Republicans are very far to the left of the majority of the party. That's not even getting into the fact that Kentucky Republicans tend libertarian when compared to other Republicans.

    Tell me, Bo, do California Republicans try and make arguments similar to Republicans in Arkansas? Because Colorado Democrats seem to not realize they're living in a state that won't allow them to govern it as far from the left as they're trying to govern. I can think of no similar situation with the Republicans because there is far more intellectual diversity.

    Tell me, where is the Democrat Chris Christie? You can talk about Republicans calling him a RINO all you want, but someone like him doesn't even exist in the Democratic Party

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Irish, Colorado is an increasingly blue state, which Obama carried, and so it is not surprising their Democrats sound more like him. Try Democrats from deeply Red states and I bet you will see as much, if not more, variation from the administration than you will see from a Californian Republican and an Indianan one.

    Or, try some objective data analysis:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n.....rs-behind/

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    The revenue comparison doesn't mean shit. Conservative groups (with all their MANY faults) are usually genuine grassroots organizations, getting $50 donations from a lot of people. Liberal orgs are often just a few zealots and would be regulators who have sucked a few mil out of George Sorros' cock.

    If you are seriously attempting to say that liberal activist groups are poorly funded (even by comparison) then your head is so far up your ass it is probably...back on top of your neck. Hey, check it out!

    That bullshit won't fly outside of some party in the Hamptons where rich bitches weep into their Cristal over the domination of right-wing money.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Er, did you not just help me make my case (that liberal feminists groups have fewer revenues [as reported] and supporters [as you argue], and hence are less influential)?

  • ||

    That doesn't make them less influential Bo. It's not just about size or money you know.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps it is not all about that, but they are of course pretty important indicators of influence, no?

  • juris imprudent||

    'DINO' hunting is something that occurs much less

    The funny thing to me after the 2010 Congressional election was the glee amongst the Left that they had purged the moderate Dems. Now they could march forward to the Glorious Leftist Future [must be code for "permanent minority"] without those neanderthals holding them back.

  • Acosmist||

    Also, Lieberman.

    Look, just ignore Blue Tulpa.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Lieberman? The fellow who spoke at the RNC convention and endorsed McCain? So his subsequent primary loss is your evidence that Democrats hunt DINO's the way the GOP hunt RINOs?

    Wow.

    I mean, how many Republican Senators have been turned out by intra-party primaries in the same time period? The Tea Party alone can claim Lugar, Mukowski, and Bennett, just off the top of my head.

    It is not even close.

  • SIV||

    Look, just ignore Blue Tulpa.

    Sound advice. If you must engage with sockpuppets there is always shriek.

  • Mr Whipple||

    They are fucking Communists, plain and simple. The only real feminists are women like Wendy McElroy and Camile Paglia, whom I call "anti-feminist Feminists".

    Just the other day, some idiot added me to some Facecrap Communism group, and one of their misogyny posts showed up in my news feed. So, I posted an interesting little internet meme (actually a few), which got all the emasculated males' panties in all a bunch. They started tagging the moderator. They called me names, posted my picture and my address. Of course, being the alpha that I am, I invited them all over to have a drink and discuss the issue, which they sadly declined before blocking me from the page.

    They do not care about freedom or equality. They only care about being recognized as "victims", and being properly compensated for that position, just like any good pinko-commie. The only real Left left, is left-libertarians and Mutualists, and even they get a little shook up with regards to identity politics, particularly the "Bleeding Heart Libertarians" (BHL).

    Personally, I think women are their own worst enemies. I am more than happy to let a woman, any woman, choose her own path in life if she is willing to own up to the consequences, good and/or bad.

  • Ming||

    True, feminism does take a lot of stuff from classical Marxism (which they also ruined). As for the 'anti-feminist feminists', I wouldn't call them that. They're probably just women who believe in 'ekwalitee', which doesn't make them feminists. Feminism is not synonymous with equality, contrary to popular belief.

  • JeremyR||

    Because they want to get invited to the cool cocktail parties...

  • JRS1001||

    agreed-good post

  • Ming||

    "I agree that actual feminists whose primary goal is equality could very well be libertarians."

    No, actual feminists primary goals have always been to give women privilege and to put women against men. You need to stop with this 'feminism is about ekwalitee guize', it isn't. Feminism could never be libertarian because they NEED the government. Without govt feminism would've gotten nowhere.

    Also, feminism was never 'infested' with progressivism, they always were leftist/progressives.

    "When progressives get involved in a group, they inevitably come to realize that they can't stand the idea of being in an organization with anyone who disagrees with them. As a result, people who might agree with progressive feminists on certain issues but are too far to the right for their taste are driven from the movement in a quest to maintain ideological purity."

    Exactly what's happening to libertarianism (this article is a good example of that). How ironic.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The article does not make the claim the headline does. At best, it shows that feminists can use non-governmental influences to make businesses accept feminist political correctness. It says nothing about feminists being effective free-marketer capitalists at all, and in fact suggests that if they could use government force do achieve the same ends, they would.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The headline says 'feminists make great free market capitalists.' It then goes on to describe several instances in which feminists successfully waged non-governmental campaigns to effect change. So how does the article not support that headline?

  • ||

    You assume that any non-governmental campaign is equal to free market capitalism. It is not.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Deciding to buy from producer X rather than producer Y because you do not like some aspect of producer Y's wares does not fall into free market capitalism?

  • ||

    Engaging in a boycott does not make one a free market capitalist, nor is it an indication of being predisposed towards being one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you want to narrowly define a 'capitalist' as an entrepreneur rather than someone who engages in free-market activity, then I guess I see your point, though I think even in that case the article lists feminists examples of that (Goldiblox, Verily).

  • juris imprudent||

    Eh, if they got people to voluntarily rally to a cause such that it had the desired effect - that is unalloyed good from the libertarian perspective, no?

    What exactly about that is incompatible with free minds and free markets?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I don't think that's what he suggesting. If, in addition to banning gay sex, Rick Santorum were to politely ask the gay community to stop having sex, would that make him an advocate of persuasion rather than coercion?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Because what is described in the article is not being a capitalist (i.e. someone who uses capital), much less a great one, or even one who supports a free market system. It simply fighting culture war battles on economic front, which is better than using government (given that it is ridiculous issue).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Free market capitalism means voluntary exchanges. A person can exchange, or not, for whatever their reason is, including 'culture war' preferences. It is no less free market capitalist activity than buying from X rather than Y because of the physical attributes of the wares.

    Resident 'paleo-libertarian' police might not like that capitalism can work that way, but then I suspect for at least some of them here it was never about capitalism anyway.

  • Mickey Rat||

    You are not understanding what I am saying.

    Using the market influences does not make one a capitalist. They are not creating wealth by doing by their use of market forces, and they would not be doing it that way if they could.

    Also, I'd punish Burt's Bees for capitulating to this silly issue if I could, but since I don't buy that type of product in the first place...

  • ||

    So you're saying those specific actions may not be anti-capitalist, but that doesn't make the people involved capitalists or pro-capitalist. I think Bo's looking entirely at defining the actions as "voluntary = capitalist, nonvoluntary = anti-capitalist". But you don't see it that way.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, because I see the feminists using the market this way only grudgingly. They don't think it is the best way, and would use government force if they could get away with it.

  • juris imprudent||

    So the only thing that matters in life is producing and/or consuming? How Marxian.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, I think it is something that specifically defines a capitalist ( in the narrow sense of the term).

  • juris imprudent||

    OK, I would agree that capitalism shouldn't be conflated with politics and society in general (though those may be fundamental to supporting a well functioning capitalist economy).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Bo, if a college president exhorts his student body to be respectful of one another in addition to passing speech codes, does that make him a free speech advocate?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What a tortured analogy. To be honest, I have to say I would like to see you walk through that one a bit more.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, it isn't in the least. The feminists in question, as you concede below, use market mechanisms as merely a tool in their arsenal to enforce their agenda. They also make use of government power and control. Well, even a communist revolutionary is willing to buy the bullets he'd use to line his enemies up against a wall. To suggest either are free market capitalists is comparable to calling the speech banning president a free speech advocate.

  • SIV||

    That pink tinker toy company is going to fail.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "They showed their power through the marketplace and convinced one branch of a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation to stop advocating for what they saw as violence against women."

    Which is not, in fact, violence at all, but perhaps annoying.

  • ||

    The problem is that free market economists make the assumption that people act rationally...

  • juris imprudent||

    Is it rational to invest? To take risks?

  • cavalier973||

    Well, people are said to act rationally based on their current perceptions and the quantity and quality of the information they possess.

  • ||

    ^^This^^

    x1000

  • SIV||

    That magazine that uses unattractive models is going to fail too.

  • Dweebston||

    I'm certain they can harness that free-market impetus and beg subsidies from the state to keep afloat. Ditto the pink tinker toys.

  • Irish||

    And, this group has additional hurdles of limited influence, since women make up only 18 percent of Congress, the Obama Administration has a gender gap, and Republicans can be outright hostile. When push comes to shove, feminists ignore these problematic institutions and take their fight right to the free market.

    This is fucking nonsensical. Women having fewer people in Congress and the Obama administration in no way means feminists don't have influence. Feminists have a massive army of impressionable 20 year olds who will basically do whatever their gender studies professors tell them to do. Congress and the Obama administration will bend over backwards to pass whatever bullshit the feminist left wants them to pass.

    The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a useless piece of legislation that will have zero impact on pay for women, but it got passed anyway solely to provide feminists with a symbolic, if objectively meaningless, victory.

    And how are Republicans hostile to women? You mean the party that ran a woman for their vice president? The Republican party is not hostile to women in any meaningful way. For all their faults, and they are many, the Republicans are simply opposed to the psychopathic excesses of the modern feminist left.

    That doesn't make them hostile to women, it makes them hostile to the would be autocrats that coopted the feminist movement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Feminists have a massive army of impressionable 20 year olds who will basically do whatever their gender studies professors tell them to do. Congress and the Obama administration will bend over backwards to pass whatever bullshit the feminist left wants them to pass.

    This from the same person who has lectured me that I overestimate the influence of social conservatives? I dare say the influence of 'gender studies professors' is much smaller than conservative religious leaders.

    Take a look at state and national party platforms. It is hard to argue with a straight face that NOW gets its way more than Focus on the Family.

  • ||

    I dare say the influence of 'gender studies professors' is much smaller than conservative religious leaders.

    With 20 years old college students?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Most 20 year old college students have never had a class with a 'gender studies professor,' much less feel the need to follow their edicts. And, of course, there are many more types of people in this world than 20 year old college students.

  • ||

    Most 20 year old college students have never had a class with a 'gender studies professor,' much less feel the need to follow their edicts.

    And you know this how?

    And, of course, there are many more types of people in this world than 20 year old college students.

    And, of course, Irish explicitly referred to 20 years olds (and implicitly to college students).

  • Irish||

    And, of course, Irish explicitly referred to 20 years olds (and implicitly to college students).

    Yes. The point is that the feminist left has an outsized political influence because they have a large group of people on their side who have massive amounts of time to devote to demonstrating.

    Any time feminists decide to have a rally they can get massive numbers of people to come simply because they have such pull among college students who don't have families or careers and therefore have the time to attend idiotic protests.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -The point is that the feminist left has an outsized political influence because they have a large group of people on their side who have massive amounts of time to devote to demonstrating.

    You are vastly overestimating the number of people feminists can turn out to anything. I can not recall the last time they turned out a huge number of protestors. Besides, protesting gets very little done these days, political activity such as raising/spending money and turning out votes does. And in those areas, as I think I have demonstrated, leftist feminist organizations are quite overmatched.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You are vastly overestimating the number of people feminists can turn out to anything. I can not recall the last time they turned out a huge number of protestors.

    And yet, the "slut walks" or "slut marches" make national news. Either they're pulling out some big numbers or the media is giving them undue attention. You can't have it both ways.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course 'the media is giving them undue attention' was not Irish's claim, it was that Gender Studies professors have an army of 20 year old students to field.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Of course 'the media is giving them undue attention' was not Irish's claim,

    And it doesn't need to be, unless you're on this thread engaging in third rate sophistry and masturbation. If the media are making modest protests national stories, clearly the gender studies elites wield national influence beyond even 20-year-olds. Quit making this discussion about how you're a better master debater than other contributors.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -And you know this how?

    Why would anyone assume otherwise? There are relatively few professors of gender studies, and the classes they offer are a drop in the bucket compared to required courses for most popular majors (gender studies is not one of those). So why in the world would you think many 20 year old students (if he just said 20 year olds then the argument is even weaker, since many 20 year olds do not go to college).

  • ||

    There are relatively few professors of gender studies, and the classes they offer are a drop in the bucket compared to required courses for most popular majors (gender studies is not one of those).

    Comprehensive List of Courses Satisfying General Education Requirements at Barnard College

    WMST BC 3509 The Sex of Science: Gender and Knowledge in Modern European History (also HIS)

    WMST BC 3513 Critical Animal Studies (also SOC)

    WMST V 1001 Introduction to Women's and Gender Studies

    WMST BC 3509 The Sex of Science: Gender and Knowledge in Modern European History (also HIS)

    WMST V 3122 The Jewish Woman: Hist.& Cult.

    WMST BC 1050 Introduction to Women and Health

    WMST BC 3518 Studies in U.S. Imperialism

    WMST BC 3530 Feminist Media Theory

    WMST BC 3590 Theorizing Civic Engagement

    WMST BC 3131 Women and Science

    WMST BC 3132 Gendered Controversies: Women's Bodies and Global Conflicts

    WMST BC 3136 Asian American Women

    WMST W 4303 Gender, Globalization & Empire

    WMST BC 3121 Black Women in America

    WMST BC 3509 The Sex of Science: Gender and Knowledge in Modern European History (also REA)

    (cont.)

  • ||

    WMST W 4300 #4 / 4306 Advanced Topics: Feminisms in China

    WMST BC 2530 Global South Women Film Directors

    WMST BC 3133 Women, Islam and Nationalism

    WMST BC 3134 Unheard Voices: African Women's Literature (also LIT)

    WMST BC 3915 Gender and Power in Transnational Perspective

    WMST BC 3120 Litany for Survival: Lesbian Texts

    WMST W 4300 #1 / 4301 The Search for Self I: US Jewish Women Writers

    WMST W 4300 #2 / 4302 The Search for Self II: Twentieth-Century Jewish Women Writers

    WMST W 4310 Contemporary American Jewish Women's Literature: 1990 to Present

    WMST BC 3117 Woman and Film

    ----

    Now these courses aren't necessarily 'gender studies' but are being offered under the Women's Studies tag -- and there is little question of Women's Studies profs not being mostly "leftist feminists".

  • juris imprudent||

    Jaysus Christ - you CITE Barnard as representative of ALL collegiate education? Why not Liberty U?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I know, sheesh.

  • ||

    You can shees as much as you want, but you still haven't demonstrated that "the influence of 'gender studies professors' is much smaller than conservative religious leaders" among 20 years old college students.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I guess I also have not demonstrated that there is not an invisible, intangible unicorn behind you right now.

    I have given reasons to doubt the claim of this great influence on their part, and I have seen no reasons or evidence to support it (other than a list of what appear to be optional classes that satisfy gen ed requirements at Barnard College, an offering so ridiculous it itself calls into question how much you know about this topic in general).

  • ||

    You made a statement:

    I dare say the influence of 'gender studies professors' is much smaller than conservative religious leaders.

    The context was 20 years old college students.

    Now support your statement.

  • juris imprudent||

    Since you insist on being the biggest idiot on this thread, Liberty U has 5 times the enrollment of Barnard. Now what the fuck makes you think Barnard is more representative?

  • ||

    And what does enrollment has to do with courses offered or taken?

  • juris imprudent||

    Enrollment? Oh, it might have something to do with how MANY students are exposed to a given bit of the curricula. You know, like someone was arguing about how many 20 year-olds were indoctrinated into leftist feminist dogma.

    What really ought to be obvious to you is that neither of the two institutions under discussion is representative of ALL undergrad education. But then you'd have to concede the poor choice on your part.

  • ||

    Barnard as representative of ALL collegiate education?

    Nope; just as an example. What's wrong with it? I would think that other top colleges have similar courses at similar ratios.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You can not see a reason why Barnard might be different than other major colleges?

    Wow.

    When was the last time you were on a college campus? The vast majority of college students safely (and healthily) avoid Womens or Gender Studies courses.

  • ||

    You can not see a reason why Barnard might be different than other major colleges?

    Wow.

    So you have nothing to say, just snark.

    The vast majority of college students safely (and healthily) avoid Womens or Gender Studies courses.

    Citation needed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look, with all due respect, choosing Barnard's list is such a bizarre and contrived choice that it calls into question what in the world you know about college campuses in general. It would be like someone arguing that creationism was commonly taught on college campuses and then listing the Liberty University requirements.

    As I said before, I have given you reasons (that very few, if any, Gender Studies courses are required of most majors at most colleges [and this is likely more true for popular majors]). You have given no counter-evidence other than a hilariously laughable list of what appear to be OPTIONAL courses that satisfy gen ed requirements at a notorious women's college.

    If you really are interested in learning more about this, try this: go to major colleges and see how many faculty there are in Women's studies departments vs. other departments such as Math, English, History and such. If they are so ubiquitous then of course they will dwarf these other departments, eh?

  • ||

    If you really are interested in learning more about this, try this:

    Don't patronize me; support your statemenet:

    I dare say the influence of 'gender studies professors' is much smaller than conservative religious leaders.

    in context of 20 years old college students.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My friend, you are simply trolling at this point. I have offered my reasons and a way to investigate the matter, and you have offered only something to call your knowledge on this subject in serious doubt. The ball is 'in your court' so to speak to provide some reason to support the claim, and I have little interest in further debating your comments which are just repeated assertions of 'prove this to me, prove it to me!'

  • ||

    The ball is 'in your court' so to speak to provide some reason to support the claim

    Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

    You trolled with an unsupported statement, then attempted to move the goalposts.

    QED.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, Bo, he's not. It's fairly straightforward for a small ideologically homogeneous group to wield outsized authority in a system where they have no clear ideological offsetting opposition. To buy your assertion that the Womens' Studies faculty have little influence with 20-year-olds, you have to explain the ample leverage these departments hold in college campuses (most would be closed down for financial reasons if they didn't).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let me get this straight: your arguments in support of Irish's claim are

    1. It's possible!

    and

    2. the fact that Women's Studies faculty have the leverage they do DESPITE THE FACT THEY HAVE FEW MAJORS AND FEW STUDENTS (I can not see any other way to understand your 'financial reasons' statement) shows that Irish's statement about them being able to field an army of 20 year old students is true.

    Pretty incredible that you did not catch that as you wrote it!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The question here ISN'T IRISH'S CLAIM. You've been arguing that gender feminists don't wield power. Clearly they do.

  • juris imprudent||

    I refute you this, nimrod

    UC Berkeley liberal arts undergraduate requirements

    Not one Women's/Gender Studies REQUIRED. I trust Berserkley is representative of the leftist bias in higher education.

  • ||

    Dont't 'refute', peasant; support the statement

    I dare say the influence of 'gender studies professors' is much smaller than conservative religious leaders.

    in context of 20 years old college students.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    neoteny, you do realize that among the many problems your repeated 'argument' possesses, is that I did not make the original claim about influence (Irish did). I just expressed doubt about it. So your obsessively repeated 'you did not prove it!' is even more bizarre than I explained supra, and indicates your partisanship more than anything else (why not repeatedly ask Irish to prove his claim, since he first made it?).

  • ||

    I just expressed doubt about it.

    Yes, you "dared to say" without providing any support for it. If something is 'bizarre', then your statement surely qualifies.

  • ||

    neoteny's post didn't claim they were required, just listed what was offered. Fuck, even Brigham Young (voted the most conservative college) has a Women's Studies minor.

  • Irish||

    Bo, the entire rhetoric of the modern left when it comes to gender issues comes from far left ideologues in colleges.

    Would you like me to run through an explanation of male privilege for you? How about the war on women?

    These are major aspects of the last campaign on the left. I don't recall conservatives making abortion a major issue in the last election. You want to know who did make it an issue? The feminist left...and the media grabbed onto that narrative.

    Binders full of women! He'll take away your birth control! WAR ON WOMEN!

    Are you seriously telling me that you missed the last election and didn't see how far left feminist neurosis was the primary narrative?

    Hell, how about the press coverage of Wendy Davis' filibuster or Sandra Fluke? Wendy Davis is a middling state representative from Texas and Sandra Fluke is a loser who should have no relevance in American politics. In spite of that, they became major faces of the last election and Sandra Fluke spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

    You are being willfully obtuse if you're trying to tell me that the feminist left doesn't have a voice far in excess of the amount of money or representatives they may possess.

  • ||

    You are being willfully obtuse...

    Gee, ya think?

  • SIV||

    Why do they engage it?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, I am glad that you seem to concede that in objective measures such as representatives and money spent they are outmatched.

    Turning to your specific examples, it was the Obama campaign that cynically followed a 'war on women' campaign, and Obama's campaign is not some feminist juggernaut. That was not the feminists wagging the Presidential dog, but the other way around! And still Obama did not win because women were moved to vote, he won because record numbers of minorities voted for him in key states.

    Wendy Davis became famous because the Texas Democratic Party put her face on the campaign against the abortion law. Again, that is a clear case of male dominated Party wagging the feminist tail, not the other way around. Sandra Fluke only became famous when Limbaugh foolishly used his over-the-top language to criticize her.

    These are non-starters. As I said, just peruse state Democrat and Republican Party Platforms and see how little influence 'feminists' have relative to social conservatives. Both left wing feminists and right wing social conservatives have illiberal stances regarding pornography, but while many examples of GOP platform planks denouncing it can be brought forward I have never seen a Democrat Party one do the same. Why is that if the feminists have so much more influence with the Dems than the social conservatives have with the GOP?

  • Dweebston||

    That was not the feminists wagging the Presidential dog, but the other way around!

    You realize there needs be a dog to wag, right? If feminism as it currently incarnates did not possess outsized influence relative to its modest base of supporters, why would the administration push with it? Could he have wrangled the same support by cynically using, say, Native American activists—a minority with a congruently modest scale of influence?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If feminism as it currently incarnates did not possess outsized influence relative to its modest base of supporters, why would the administration push with it?

    I do not know, and I addressed the results supra:

    And still Obama did not win because women were moved to vote, he won because record numbers of minorities voted for him in key states.

    He wagged and not much happened.

  • juris imprudent||

    Are you seriously telling me that you missed the last election and didn't see how far left feminist neurosis was the primary narrative?

    Whoa, who is being obsessive here?

  • Irish||

    Whoa, who is being obsessive here?

    Seriously? The media spent more time rambling about the WAR ON WOMEN! in that election than they did discussing foreign policy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The media's job is, in part, to cover the major campaigns. The Obama campaign was relentlessly 'on-message' with this 'war on women' stuff, and the media covered it (and, being the media, it often tended to do so in a way tilted in bias to his campaign). That hardly demonstrates the power of feminists.

  • juris imprudent||

    The media spent more time on a ton of trivial things because that is how we decide important things like Presidential elections. Do you live in this country?

    Honestly, harping on this one point is a might absurd.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Indeed, I think '47%' got more play than 'war on women.'

  • Maldoror||

    Please, Irish, remind from what side of the political spectrum came declartions that "If a women was raped, it is the will of God"? Can you, before coming up with your bullshit about who brought the issue into the last campaign?

  • SIV||

    who brought the issue into the last campaign?

    The National campaign? The Democrats and their media lackeys.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is there a better example of a feminist organization than NOW? It appears their yearly revenue is about half a million dollars. Compare that to Focus on the Family which has a yearly revenue of 95 million. Their relative influence is not even close. Feminists get a lot of press in conservative press organizations because their antics are often so foolish and easy to ridicule, so those who get most of their news from such sources tend to exaggerate their presence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family

    http://www.guidestar.org/Partn.....52-1477004

  • Entropy Void||

    If Zenon actually knew the history of Debbie Sterling and her previous (and present: suing the Beastie Boys)calls for government assistance to her causes, he/she/it would not have used her as an example of feminism utilizing the Free Market.

  • SIV||

    Debbie Sterling has an unsuccessful line of sexist toys.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Debbie Sterling has an unsuccessful line of sexist toys.

    But you are just fine with sexism, right, so it is 'all good' as they say, yes?

    Wait, let me guess, your delicate paleo-sensibilities only like traditionally blessed versions of sexism, consistency being a hobgoblin of lesser minds.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If I recall correctly Sterling sued the Beastie Boys after getting a 'cease and desist letter' from them. It is quite common to file these 'preemptive' or 'defensive' suits in response to that in intellectual property fights and is no more an indicator of statism by itself than someone using any extant laws to protect their rights set up under them while they exist.

  • Entropy Void||

    My understanding of the events is that you do not recall correctly.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix.....isruption/

    I am not quite sure what your definition of "quite common" is, but I really don't think the rest of the English speaking world would agree with your analysis of: "It is quite common to file these 'preemptive' or 'defensive' suits in response to that in intellectual property fights"

    Why don't you try a LexisNexis search and prove me right?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You do not need LexisNexis, just google 'preemptive lawsuit copyright.' With no little irony, several of the newer articles that will come up will also vindicate my recollection of Ms. Sterling's lawsuit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -On Monday, the band released an open letter to the company, GoldieBlox, a San Francisco-area start-up that makes toys and games designed to encourage girls to learn about science and technology.

    GoldieBlox had filed a lawsuit on Thursday that asserted its right to use the music in the video, which has gone viral with more than eight million views. It said in the suit that it “created its parody video specifically to comment on the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes.”

    When you get a cease and desist letter you can ignore it, but if you want to keep using the material you can expect a lawsuit, so it is not uncommon to sue first defending your right to use the material. Note the suit does not seek to enjoin the Beastie Boys from using the material, but to enjoin them from enjoining Goldiblox from using it.

  • Entropy Void||

    ..."just google" it.

    The last refuge of the ignorati.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not know what to tell you, if you google 'preemptive lawsuit copyright' and the term comes up hundreds of times, then it is probably a somewhat common thing, no?

  • everyone||

    'preemptive lawsuit copyright':
    - 3,570,000 results
    'bo cara fucks goats':
    - 7,750,000 results

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    When facts and logic fail...

  • everyone||

    When facts and logic fail...

    The point is is that you can choose any random words and get millions of results.

    On your point about a 'cease and desist letter' from the Beastie Boys, I found nothing that supports that (though, honestly, I didn't check thoroughly). You then quote 'an open letter' and imply that it contained 'cease and desist' language. This article references an open letter in its third paragraph which details no such 'cease and desist' language. In part, it states:

    According to The Beastie Boys, they reached out to GolideBlox to “simply ask how and why our song ‘Girls’ had been used in your ad without our permission.”
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your point is pretty disingenuous since, unlike the latter, the former the exact phrase has many hits. If that does not show the phrase is a common one, referring to a common thing in that area, I am not sure what would.

    As to what went on, you can read the complaint (of course only their side) Goldiblox filed here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/186402972/Beastie

  • everyone||

    Your point is pretty disingenuous since, unlike the latter, the former the exact phrase has many hits.

    Yes, I tried the exact phrasing, but it only returned 1 result on Google (0 on Bing), so I assumed that you just googled without quotes.

    Your scribd court filing is one-sided as you point out. Is there any corroborating evidence that Beastie Boys lawyers made this claim? An updated HuffPo article has the Beastie Boys denying this claim.

  • Entropy Void||

    Well, you could tell me you were going to deep-throat a Colt Python, but I guess that would be too much to ask.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What a sad and disgusting comment.

    You clearly do not know much about the topic. Your narrative about Sterling 'using the state' crumbles quite quickly upon examination, and so you indulge in a little suicide hope.

    I hope you find better in your life, I really do.

  • Entropy Void||

    And you clearly know EVERYTHING about the topic.

    So, why do you insist on cat-shitting in this sandbox and not go share your enlightenment with other libtards over at DailyKos?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is extremely fascinating how my comments suggest to you I am not a real libertarian when in truth I suspect the reality is closer for yourself. I do not share with 'libtards over at DailyKos' because I am not one of them, I live by the NAP. The real question is why you are not commenting over at National Review.

    You wanted to paint Ms. Sterling as a 'statist' for some desperate, unacknowledged reason, such that you offered your opinion on a matter that you had to know you were not well acquainted with. And for simply pointing out you were wrong* you must react so. As I sad, I hope you do better.

    *I am no fount of Enlightenment on this subject, I just happened to have just wrapped up my law school class on Intellectual Property so the information is fresh in my mind. A preemptive lawsuit is a not uncommon response to a cease and desist letter and it has the effect I have described, which I do not think can be painted as statist.

  • Entropy Void||

    I am not a real libertarian
    "You wanted to paint Ms. Sterling as a 'statist' for some desperate, unacknowledged reason, such that you offered your opinion on a matter that you had to know you were not well acquainted with."

    Go Google True Scotsman, Dickhead.

  • ||

    Why does Zenon Evans want to troll the feminists? Why does Zenon want to troll us?

  • SIV||

    Ignore it and maybe it will go away.

  • Entropy Void||

    Into the massive black hole of Reason ex-interns?

  • SIV||

    I was referring to the sockpuppet that disingenuously "forgets" the existence of Joe Lieberman.

  • Entropy Void||

    Oh ... Bo ... gotcha ... was erroneously reading your comment in the context of Suthenboy's.

  • SIV||

    You didn't take my advice.

  • Acosmist||

    This.

    Please ignore Blue Tulpa. Since he never makes a good point, you'll be losing nothing by doing it, and getting rid of a worthless thing that craps all over threads that annoy his prog sensibilities.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not what I find more amusing, your substance-less calls to ignore me, or the fact that you follow me throughout the thread doing so.

  • ||

    Main-stream feminists are to capitalism what anarchists are to voting. They may use it, but that doesn't mean they like it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think that is a fair statement. Most feminists I know are statists, no more but also no less than most other types of politically oriented people I know. If the market provides a mechanism to their goals they will take it, if government schemes to do the same are suggested they do not see the downsides. It is a shame, really, because capitalism has done more to liberate women than any laws I can think of. But taking the benefits of capitalism for granted is true of most groups.

  • ||

    But taking the benefits of capitalism for granted is true of most groups.

    For many (I won't say all), it's more than that. Much of the accepted feminist movement subscribe to at least part of the Marxist version of conflict theory. They really believe that without heavy government intervention we'll have a cadre of super-rich with a poor, dying underclass. This is primarily (though not totally; there are right-wing variants as well) a leftist phenomenon. The feminist movement embraces this viewpoint more or less in proportion to the extent that it's a leftwing movement. As long as feminism is defined by left-wing conflict and identity politics, it will be anti-capitalist and anti-free market.

  • ||

    As long as feminism is defined by left-wing conflict and identity politics, it will be anti-capitalist and anti-free market.

    Oh, and collectivist as well (which feeds into those narratives). Ironically I think collectivism is anti-feminist in nature, and many self-proclaimed feminists don't fit my criteria for actual adherence to feminism. Those who are opposed to feminism almost always define it in the same way the left-wing does, so their hostility is not surprising. There are plenty of people who consider them anti-feminist in the leftwing sense that I would consider feminists in actual belief, simply because what I consider feminism is decidedly different from the leftwing idea of it.

  • ||

    Feminism (like what happened with capitalism), needs to be reclaimed and redefined as an ideology if we are ever to have a large group of feminist free-marketeers. The key is to point out how many of the supposedly feminist policies are detrimental to and denigrate women. Just as the liberty movement has grown with each successive generation, an individualist feminism could eventually supplant and replace the collectivism idea of it.

    I think the next step toward that goal is to convince libertarians to adopt this individualist conception of feminism and reject the collectivist version as actually non-feminist in nature. Most libertarians, I think, already fit the mold of individualist feminists but consider feminism wholly in the collectivist sense and need to be convinced to help redefine the term along individualist lines.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    All of what you say here sounds fairly correct to me.

  • ||

    "Feminism" is inherently collectivist since it groups all women together as a monolithic whole. Women are individuals, and cannot be grouped together as a whole any more than anyone else can. So even an "individualist feminist" movement is collectivist. For instance, if I said there was an "individualist black" movement, would you see that as a positive thing, or an oxymoron?

  • cavalier973||

    Black people aren't morons! RACIST!!

  • ||

    Feminism" is inherently collectivist

    "Feminism" is just a word. It can be used in more than one way. You obviously consider feminism to refer to a type of collectivist ideology. I don't. I was raised in a household that defines feminism entirely differently, mostly as political equality. I don't consider much of the mainstream version to be truly feminist in nature.

    Women are individuals, and cannot be grouped together as a whole any more than anyone else can.

    Yes, and a truly feminist, that is, caring about females as people and individuals with all the rights as males, considers females as individuals.

    So even an "individualist feminist" movement is collectivist.

    Uh, no. See above.

    For instance, if I said there was an "individualist black" movement, would you see that as a positive thing, or an oxymoron?

    A positive thing, since I see blacks as individuals and want others to see them the same way. What else would the term refer to?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I see your point, but a feminism that, for example, simply recognized that there were laws in place that generally and collectively put barriers on women, and then opposed those laws, would in my opinion not itself be 'collectivist.' It would be reacting to collectivist laws. And I think that is how feminism actually was for a long time, and still is in some quarters and could be in more.

  • Dweebston||

    Thankfully we needn't worry about individualist feminists appearing in the fossil records to fuck up our political zoology, since the evidence of mass exploitation and discrimination perpetuated by extant feminists continues to rest on unpacked aggregations of jobs data covering multitudes of variables in preference and lifestyle decisions to prove that women make substantially less money than men. Ditto rape culture, an article of faith based on fabrications, misandry, and poor understanding of the difficulty prosecuting a he-said-she-said crime.

  • Dweebston||

    By "covering" I mean papering over, or better yet, eliding.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ditto rape culture, an article of faith based on fabrications, misandry, and poor understanding of the difficulty prosecuting a he-said-she-said crime.


    If there were a rape culture, today there would be a gold statue of Jerry Sandusky in front of Beaver Stadium.

  • Ming||

    So much idiocy.

    "I think the next step toward that goal is to convince libertarians to adopt this individualist conception of feminism"

    Feminism isn't individualist, it never will be. Nor can you 'reclaim' feminism. STOP pretending feminism was something other than what it is NOW. Feminism was never 'hijacked', it was ALWAYS THIS WAY.

    "Most libertarians, I think, already fit the mold of individualist feminists"

    I call those people LIBERALtarians. No self-respecting libertaridan should ever call themselves a feminist. Equality and liberty/freedom are NOT compatible.

  • Entropy Void||

    A friend just posted this to me on FB, about Daryl Davis, a little OT in that it is not involving feminism, but still an excellent example of getting the right things done without conscripting the Feds.

    http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/.....tound-you/

  • cavalier973||

    You know who makes even better Free Market Capitalists than Feminists?

  • cavalier973||

    From Robert Murphy via Facebook:

    Robert Murphy
    I just thought of this: If you find yourself losing an argument to a woman who happens to be married, you say, "You remind me of a Stepford wife--only ugly." Feel free to use that, but only if it comes from a place of love.
    Like · · Share · about an hour ago ·
  • ||

    Bo, I have a suggestion.

    A better way to sharpen your skills is to pick the right side and argue that.

    Arguing silly points for the sake of arguing wins you no points, convinces no one, and inspires people to want to strangle you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Where am I not arguing for the 'right side' here?

  • Entropy Void||

    Everywhere.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ha,ha, 'He himself said it!'

    Look, I get it. Like I said supra, not only are many 'paleo-libertarian' and GOP leaning (to be kind) libertarians not interested in examples of how feminists might turn to non-coercive market alternatives to further their goals, they are actually opposed to such if it threatens the trenches on their side of the culture war. It was never about capitalism, or consistency, at all with them.

    Nothing I have said here contradicts the NAP, in fact I have only argued for it. But I am not going to close my eyes to assertions which seem unsupportable but which make people on one side of the culture war feel smug and confirmed. If that makes you pettily angry at me, so be it. I have been around that kind of 'libertarian' enough to know that leopard does not change spots. For me, as the author of this article, I would love to see more and more feminists embrace market friendly campaigns rather than coercive government schemes, and I am not all that appalled by some of their goals.

  • Entropy Void||

    No, apparently you don't get it.

    I don't care whether you have a penis or lack thereof, or what you care to do with your penis or lack thereof, or whether you are melanin enhanced or lack thereof or whether English is your native language or not.

    Keep the fucking Feds out of it.

    That is all.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Oh, and by the way 'paleo-libertarian' isn't some sort of insult that's supposed to make us all run for the hills in abject terror of your disapproval. What you're guilty of is splitting hairs to redefine arguments, ignoring the substance of others' responses in favor of just details that support your own agenda, and whining about how everyone is just so mean to you.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Bo, you argue that every feminist you know is a collectivist and statist, yet feminism isn't collectivist or statist. Do you really need us to spell out that we think you're a disingenuous prick?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Bo, you argue that every feminist you know is a collectivist and statist, yet feminism isn't collectivist or statist.

    cf.

    -What you're guilty of...ignoring the substance of others' responses in favor of just details that support your own agenda

  • juris imprudent||

    Eh, neither Irish nor neoteny are presenting particularly good arguments. Must be the post-Black Friday let down.

  • Acosmist||

    Yes Irish is.

  • juris imprudent||

    Irish? He of the faux "war on women" being the primary reason for the outcome of the last Presidential election?

  • ||

    I must have missed that.

  • cavalier973||

  • cavalier973||

    “When are they going to socialize?” he asked the mother, according to reports. “Is homeschool going to continue through college and/or professional schooling? At which point are these children going to interact with other children, and isn’t that in their best interest?”

    Cano’s husband, Alejandro, had raised no objection to the way the children were being schooled.
  • Cdr Lytton||

    Is homeschool going to continue through college and/or professional schooling

    So compulsory education and legal majority have been raised to age 26 as well?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow. Outrageous. Another reason I want nothing to do with family law.

  • Dweebston||

    If the judge is predisposed to defer to an witch doctor's expert's bad juju professional opinion, how is this anything but a show trial?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    A guardian ad litem is even worse than a supposed 'expert' such as the psychologist, who here seemed to testify the child was fine under her mother's tutelage. They are just a court appointed laypersons who are supposed to somehow represent the abstract best interest of a child the ad litem knows on a very superficial level. Check out this statement from the Florida Ad Litem page:

    -Do I have the qualifications needed to advocate for a child?

    If you are concerned for the well being of children and a have continuing commitment to advocate for a child until a safe and permanent home is obtained — you will be an effective Guardian ad Litem.

    If you are objective and non judgmental and are able to interact with people of various educational, economic and ethnic backgrounds — you will be an effective Guardian ad Litem.

    Do I need to be an attorney to be a Volunteer Guardian ad Litem?

    No. Anyone with common sense, compassion and dedication to children can be a Guardian ad Litem.

    http://guardianadlitem.org/vol_faq.asp

  • Dweebston||

    Gyahhhh, that's an infuriating thought. Not to Godwin right off the bat, but child molesters possess a modicum of concern for the wellbeing of their victims if they care to avoid being murderers, too. How would such a person ever serve as a dispassionate arbiter and not as a mouthpiece for the court? There's no parental motive, no familial restraint, nothing but a capacity to deliver judgements from on high serving the interests of the state against the family. What a coup for the court.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Precisely. It is bad enough to have an imprecise 'best interest of the child' standard at play, but to then have some ninny off the street with naught but a superficial knowledge of the child/and their situation and a 'concern for children' to be appointed the child's spokesperson, and then to defer to this person over the parent is so outrageous. There should be a strong, strong presumption that parents have the best interest at stake, only when there is parental disagreement or strong evidence to rebut such presumption should an ad litem even be considered, and then only people with some high level of training should be considered (and still they should have to overcome presumptions of parental fitness).

  • Dweebston||

    Not just some ninny, but a self-selected exemplar of busybody mentality. Who else offers herself up as a volunteer guardian but someone already predisposed to meddle? And that's assuming the court exercises no discretion in who it grants guardianship, which I doubt.

  • juris imprudent||

    My ex did volunteer work as a CASA - basically the same thing. You would shit yourself if you had to deal with some of the things she did.

    There are plenty of people who have procreated that had no business doing so. Does that mean I want the state to issue licenses to do so? Fuck no, but you have to be beyond stupid not to recognize the problem and how it perpetuates. Kids if they aren't fucked up on their own can get there by being pawns in legal disputes between the parents; so the concept of an independent perspective in an otherwise adversarial system of 'justice' is not a bad idea. This particular one and his/her "gut feeling" is an unfortunate turn. It is ironic that when parents are in agreement that the court sees fit to interject itself against their stance.

  • Pompey||

    Thanks for the nut punch.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So before even clicking the link, I says to myself, "I bet this is a divorce case." And I'm right:

    "Therese Cano of Florida has been in an ongoing child visitation battle with her husband, and during the process of arbitration, the court had appointed a psychologist and a guardian ad litem to oversee the matter."

    That's why courts are in the position to adjudicate so many of these questions, duh!

  • Gina Luttrell||

    The only quibble I have is with this line:

    "As Cathy Young recently noted for Reason, women control 60 percent of the wealth in the U.S. This gives them massive clout for swaying the way companies engage women."

    I nor anyone I know has been able to find the original sourcing for that claim, making it dubious at best in my opinion.

  • SIV||

    Women control "half the money and 100% of the pussy" is the way I always heard it.

  • thorax232||

    They sound like communists to me. Complaining about what they support.

  • cavalier973||

    The article title is "Feminists Make Great Free Market Capitalists", but then proceeds to tell of several instances of certain groups being whiny babies. Given the title, I was expecting two or three stories about women who happen to be members of the Feminist Movement starting successful businesses and such; perhaps surprising themselves with their ability to promote feminism in and through the marketplace.

    Nope; it was just a bunch of whiny babies who did not involve the FedGov.

  • cavalier973||

    OT: Woman has her baby forcibly removed from her--by C section.

  • ||

    libertarian advocates, who have a documented problem selling their brand to women.

    To be fair feminists have the same problem with women.

    The number of women who identify as feminists is a pretty small group.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    My wife who makes well over a quarter million dollars a year absolutely despises feminism.

  • SIV||

    Other forms of sexism in the liberty movement are a bit more subtle. Men who tell women at conferences that “Women aren’t really equipped to understand libertarianism. It’s a biological thing.” Or even “Of course women are statists. They all just want to be taken care of.” Or “Women’s brains just can’t do economics.” Or “Women’s right to vote ruined the country.”

    I'll stand by the last one but I can't say I've ever heard the rest of these. Do people really say shit like this? Or do they say something else and the author just feels this is what they meant?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I have read it in comments on MRA blogs.

    the obvious counter is that men overwhelmingly supported Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, who were hardly defenders of individual liberty.

  • SIV||

    MRA and PUA blogs are sort of a male-mirror of feminism.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I've never seen much in the way of evidence suggesting men were more likely to support any of the above than women.

  • np||

    “Women’s right to vote ruined the country.”

    That's what ruined the country. Ideally, Jim Bell's assassination politics would extend to voters who give legislators power (i.e. aggression by proxy) or who vote for NAP violating state laws. A tit-for-tat accumulating all of the suffering voters bring (e.g. 10 lbs of force x 1,000,000 over time = 10,000,000,000 lbs of force) and reversing the vectors of misery would only be justified.

  • np||

    whoops 3 too many zeroes. But you get the idea.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -“Women’s right to vote ruined the country.” I'll stand by the last one

    And I'M supposed to be a troll.

    Sheesh.

  • JeremyR||

    We probably wouldn't have had prohibition or the drug war if women didn't have the right to vote. Not to mention prostitution probably wouldn't be legal.

  • JeremyR||

    Er, illegal

    They should have the right to vote, you can't say it hasn't shaped society for the worse, as women tend to love the nanny state.

  • SIV||

    Libertarians should call out other libertarians when they say things that are factually incorrect or uphold sexist stereotypes with no facts or good data to back them up.


    It is not a sexist stereotype to say a majority of women are on the anti-liberty side of issues where a majority of men are pro-liberty.

    Gun rights and marijuana legalization come to mind.


    "Men support legalization 59 - 36 percent, but women are opposed 52 - 44 percent.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    52-44 percent.

    Well, that of course supports such a sweeping generalization!

  • SIV||

    If I was going to respond to the disingenuous dipshit I'd point out that the relevant numbers are the 15 and 16 point disparities in fer and agin'.

  • angus||

    The only working definition of "feminist" is a woman who votes for a left wing political party.

  • SIV||

    This link from Zenon is all about the "libertarian war on women"

    Let me ask y’all a question. In the last 30 days, how many of you have talked about gender discrimination? What about LGBT discrimination? Sexual harassment? What about rape? Here’s a good one. What about doulas or midwives? Now, out of those of you who talked about those issues, how many of you said that the issue wasn’t a problem at all? Or perhaps shifted the focus of the conversation onto women in general, maybe by saying that the gender wage gap was a myth, or that differences in occupational representation was due to personal preferences, or that, dare I say it, most rape cases were in some way preventable by the person raped?

    I doubt there are any libertarians who believe the state should enforce a medical monopoly or that women shouldn't be able to choose "doulas and midwives" (I suspect she means the state should mandate insurance coverage or some such). I certainly believe the "wage gap" as pushed by politicians and feminists IS a myth and that (other than ability) personal preferences are the predominant driver of occupational representation.

  • SIV||

    Women feel unsafe to let down their guard among friends, lest they be attacked and raped. They feel that they cannot succeed in their lives on par with men because for whatever reasons, they will not make as much money. They feel enormous, unweilding pressure to live two lives at once: one as the primary caregiver of the children of the home and one wherein they have a successful career—and to look fabulous doing both.

    WTF? I don't want this woman anywhere near "the liberty movement".

  • SIV||

    I don't want this woman anywhere near "the liberty movement".

    After reading more of Ms Luttrell's work at ToL I'd like to wholly retract that statement and offer an apology.

    I do wonder what non-state, non-corecive remedy she proposes for her collectivist concerns on the inequality of outcomes.

  • BMFPitt||

    It appears that she chooses her friends poorly, as well.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    does this chick want more cheese with that whine?

  • JRS1001||

    Last time I checked - Libertarianism seeks equality for all citizens, freedom of expression and limited government.
    Feminism on the other hand seeks an elevated status for women, no responsibility for their sexual choices if it results in a pregnancy, restriction of expression if it disagrees with their ideology. manipulation of society through alleged victim status. Furthermore, as demonstrated by dumbass Sandra Fluke, they want government mandated spending on their personal needs that should be paid for by the individual. The government mandate for "maternity leave" is entirely contrary to the concepts of liberty and limited government.

    Feminism is a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT - got it!
    why the editors of this page allows this drivel to be posted is beyond me.

  • np||

    You didn't read the article, did you?

  • JRS1001||

    sure i did - did you?
    Is there anything I said that isn't accurate or factual - DIDN'T THINK SO

  • Dragon||

    JRS1001... Very well stated!

  • Dragon||

    The article in no way supports the title. How does a bunch of uptight women that believe themselves to be perpetual victims getting a company to abandon some terminology in a marketing campaign constitute free market prowess? The women are idiots. The term catcall has no gender reference. They are taking exception to something out of ignorance. I think they are confusing the term catcall with wolf whistle. Regardless of the specifics of their ignorance, what is the point of this article?!?! We all would be better served if the article was written about a company bending to the will of hate mongers expressing their victimization by way of their own poor vocabulary. Now that could be an interesting read.

  • SIV||

    The article in no way supports the title.

    Agreed



    SIV|12.1.13 @ 12:09PM|#

    The column doesn't support the headline.

  • prolefeed||

    Republican and libertarian groups have no issue making allies with people they disagree with politically. The NRA will gladly donate money to Democrats who are willing to protect gun rights.

    Your example doesn't support your thesis.

    The NRA isn't a Republican group, it is a political advocacy group for gun rights that includes people of all political parties.

    If the NRA gives money to a Democratic political candidate, it is because the NRA leadership thinks that their membership AGREES politically with said candidate on the issues that the NRA cares about.

  • BMFPitt||

    Every issue of Cosmo that promotes what readers see as unhealthy body image...

    I'm going to go out on a limb and propose that no reader of Cosmo is concerned with an "unhealthy body image."

  • SIV||

    "No Healthy Body Image Chicks"

  • ibcbet||

    i think thats good rule

  • Moogle||

    So free markets are not mansplained privileged forces of the mysoginist patriarchy?

    Oops. I forgot to give trigger warnings. THIS IS NOT A SAFE SPACE!

  • triclops||

    I like the density of BS jargon you cram in here. A study in elegance.

  • Moogle||

  • catbonez||

    Why are you dummies responding to Bo Cara Esq? He is trolling your asses off.

  • VictorMHuff||

    My Uncle Jeremiah got a nine month old Dodge Journey SUV by working off of a pc online. try this website
    http://www.max34.com

  • Almanian!||

    Botard is the new MNG.

    Romo Romos the game. Botard Botard's the post.

    Thanks, botard! Can we make today TFT?

  • triclops||

    I think you guys are being unfair to Bo. He isn't a troll. It is more accurate to say he has libertarian principles but has a mood affiliation with liberal culture that makes his perspective hard to understand for people who are sick of the liberal perspective. This is not to say that I agree with Bo on any particular issue. He appears to me to be a libertarian with the tastes of a prog, and I think that throws a lot of the Reason commentariat off balance. He appears to sympathize with progressive groups even if he disagrees with them. Of course I could be wrong, but that's my take.

  • Ming||

    Oh my. More libertardians trying to appease the left by promoting feminism. You suck Reason.

    Also no, feminists would be terrible free marketeers. They're totalitarians, I though lbiertardians were against that.

  • BambiB||

    Feminists are driving themselves into irrelevancy. As women have voted for ever-greater deficits, they have sealed the fate of America. Our economy will collapse. The dollar will crash. All the freebie pro-woman (anti-male) programs women have carved out for themselves over the past 90 years will vaporize.

    And then women will be left to compete against men in the absence of their government sugar-daddy.

    And they will lose most of what they've gained.

    Darwin will not be denied.

  • ||

    How the Free Market creates wealth:
    http://rich_grise.tripod.com/cgi-bin/stew1.pl

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Women are just as ugly as men when they get into any political or ideological movements or just about any other human endeavor. In fact they are probably nastier, and especially the feminists, who deep down hate men in general.

  • parkerbce586||

    until I looked at the draft that said $8761, I have faith ...that...my best friend had been actualie erning money part time at their laptop.. there mums best friend has been doing this 4 only about 8 months and resently repaid the morgage on there villa and purchased a brand new Aston Martin DB5. see here now
    ==============================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ==============================

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement