Can Christina Hoff Sommers Save Feminism?

A conservative writer's "freedom feminism" agenda is short on both freedom and feminism.

Freedom Feminism: Its Surprising History and Why It Matters Today, by Christina Hoff Sommers, AEI Press, 127 pages, $3.95.

Some libertarians look askance at feminism, seeing it only as a leftist push to use the state to benefit women. Many conservatives see it something as far worse. But Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute wants to change all that. In Freedom Feminism, Sommers sets out to provide a manifesto for moderate and conservative women (and, some say, for libertarians) because they "must be at the helm" if they are to raise broad support for the kind of feminism that she thinks is worthwhile. Sommers asserts that her "freedom feminism" is a synthesis of 19th century "radical egalitarianism" and a conservative "maternal school," and that the results avoid the problems of leftist feminism.

This raises two questions for libertarians: Is feminism salvageable? And if so, is Sommers' new blend the right mix?

In addressing the first question, it is useful to recognize that leftists didn't invent feminism. Mary Wollstonecraft, the leading influence on First Wave feminism, was an individualist. So were such 19th-century American feminists as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who believed that "nothing adds such dignity to character as the recognition of one's self-sovereignty; the right to an equal place, everywhere conceded—a place earned by personal merit." In addition to working for the vote, 19th-century feminists struggled to undo unjust and unfair laws that made women the property of their husbands. They sought equal rights, not governmental privilege.

The American individualist anarchists of the 19th century were on the cutting edge of this movement. Ezra and Angela Heywood braved prison to bring birth control information to the public through their journal The Word. Angela Heywood was one of the very few feminists in the 19th century to call for legalized abortion. Moses Harman, publisher of the anarchist/feminist publication Lucifer the Lightbearer, may have been the first person in the 19th century to publicly attack marital rape in print. His daughter Lillian refused to change her name when she married Edwin Walker in a non-state wedding. Many of the themes that concerned these anarchist feminists are still being discussed by libertarian feminists today.

In spite of skepticism in some quarters of the libertarian movement, modern libertarian feminism is thriving. Buoyed by that 19th-century heritage, such writers as Joan Kennedy Taylor, Charles W. Johnson, Roderick Long, Lynn Kinsky, and I have argued that libertarianism offers a less paternalistic and thus less patriarchal approach to solving the issues that concern women today. The left-wing feminist theoretician bell hooks defines feminism as a movement to end patriarchy, all forms of patriarchal oppression, and all forms of oppression as a whole. Libertarian feminists would agree with that agenda in a general way. But they see a problem. If feminists want to reject "all forms of oppression as a whole," then from a libertarian perspective, coercive government is inconsistent with that goal. Instead, we argue that feminism should dispense with government favoritism and privilege, focusing instead on mutual aid and private alternatives.

But does Sommers have something worthwhile to contribute to the mix? Is a synthesis based on 19th-century "radical egalitarianism" and a conservative "maternal school" workable? Maybe to conservatives, but not to libertarians.

For one thing, 19th-century individualist feminists were not "radical egalitarians," as Sommers claims. Nor did they believe that "men and women are essentially identical," as one of her tables claims. Not one of these feminists ever said that.

But the bigger problem is "maternal feminism," by which she means a belief that women and men are "different but equal." This is essentially a code for claiming that various stereotypes about women are true: that we are more caring and more nurturing, that most of us would stay at home and be moms if we could, that many of us don't really care much about careers, that we would be happier accepting our "differences." Sommers writes, for example, that "the paradox of egalitarian feminism" is that "when women are liberated from the domestic sphere...and no longer sequestered in the role of nurturer, many, perhaps most, persist in giving priority to the domestic sphere." What kind of "paradox" is this? Of course most women (and men) want families, but that doesn't mean they can't want careers too. 

Sommers does not provide evidence that "many, perhaps most" women feel this way. A 2012 Gallup poll showed that 63 percent of women, including those with children at home, work outside the home. And while some of those might prefer to stay at home were it not for economic necessity, work outside the home is more common among women with college or graduate degrees and women with higher incomes. Seventy-five percent of women with a college degree have jobs. For women with postgraduate education, the number is 84 percent. Low-income mothers are far less likely to be employed than are upper-income mothers (45 percent vs. 77 percent). Does she seriously think it possible that "most" women do not want careers? That most prefer "domestic life" to careers, as if they were either/or? She even suggests that most women prefer what she calls "pink collar" jobs, such as fashion design and nursing, even though women are now around 47.3 percent of students in medical schools, 47.2 percent in law schools, and the majority (58 percent) in college.

Nor does she back up her claims about the "differences" between women and men. In fact, the consensus among most serious scientists who do gender research—neuroscientist Lise Eliot, psychologist Janet Hyde, neuropsychologist Melissa Hines, and biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, for example—is that the behavioral and cognitive differences between women and men are not nearly as great as the average person (or Sommers) imagines. There is almost certainly a small genetic component, but it is less overall than the contributions of multitudes of cultural, family, and individual environmental influences. Anthropological research on gender bears this out; scholars such as Peggy Reeves Sanday have shown there is more variation in gender roles than Sommers apparently assumes. From a feminist point of view—and from an individualist one—Sommers' stereotyping is unacceptable. We should be looking at the merits and choices of each person as an individual, not as a member of a particular biological group.

All people of every gender should be able to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives. Nothing else is libertarian. If a woman wants to be a homemaker, that is her choice. If a man wants to stay at home with his children, that too is his choice. If a woman wants a career, and doesn't want children or marriage, she doesn't need to be told that she is aberrant because she doesn't "give priority to the domestic sphere." Nor do women who disagree with Sommers' analysis of "women's issues" need her to tell them that they sound "brainwashed." Sommers' interpretations are geared toward her ideological beliefs rather than what either history or social science actually suggest. Her "freedom feminism" has nothing to offer to feminism, let alone libertarian feminism.

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.

  • Floridian||

    If feminist were for equality for all, then they wouldn't be feminist they would be libertarians. You don't need a gender identifier in your movement title if you claim to represent everyone.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    +10 interGoogletubez for brevity.

  • Floridian||

    +10 interGoogletubez for brevity.


    This brings my total up to 10

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    15 more and you'll earn an admiral's hat.

  • Floridian||

    That would be just capital.

  • seguin||

    I think your confusing intertubez points with Thetans.

  • seguin||

    you're dammit.

  • John Galt||

    Have a nice +2.071, you earned it.

  • JWatts||

    I'll kick in an extra +3.14156

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's baloney.

    Some people care about some aspect of liberty more than others.

    Some people care more about gun rights. Some people don't care as much about that; they care about taxes and spending.

    Some people care a lot more about the drug war than others.

    I care about all those issues, but some of them more than others, and there's nothing about people who care especially about women's issues that makes them any less libertarian than anyone else.

    Incidentally, this would be a great time to rewatch Reason's own Kerry Howley (with Meagan McArdle) on libertarian women:

    http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1696

    Ms. Presley may find it interesting, too.

  • Irish||

    Which would make sense if there were any time the feminist left was in favor of any liberty.

    I'm only talking about the feminist left here, which makes up the majority of people who call themselves feminists today. They are in favor of freedom in literally no instance.

    They are pure statists.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Which would make sense if there were any time the feminist left was in favor of any liberty."

    Who's talking about the feminist left?

    What about feminist libertarians and the feminist right?

    Do you bother to read the f'n article?

  • Irish||

    That's pretty much what the feminist movement is, Ken. The feminist movement does not have a large enough number of conservatives or libertarians to be relevant. In fact, they despise any conservative or libertarian regardless of whether or not they call themselves feminists.

    Most feminists would not even believe it's possible to be a feminist if you aren't on the left. Look at the absurd arguments by feminists that people like Thatcher shouldn't count as 'one of them' even though she was the first female prime minister of a major country. There aren't many feminists laying claim to Merkel either.

    That's because both of them are on the right. A conservative or libertarian can call him or herself feminist as much as they want, but they won't be accepted as such by 95% of the feminist movement.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why are you restating the premise of the article?

    Did you bother to read it?

  • ||

    -1 Golda Meir.

  • seguin||

    Article? What article?

  • Floridian||

    I care about guns, for all Americans.
    I care about drugs, for all Americans.
    I care about taxes, for all Americans.

    When you put male, female, white, black, in your movement title you are signaling that you don't care about rights for all, but for your group.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No one said we don't care about those things.

    But everybody cares more about some things than others.

    We're libertarians. We care about all of these things.

    I care about the NSA and the rights of pornographers, but I care about one of them more than the other.

    If somebody cares more about feminism than, say, gun rights, that doesn't mean they don't care about gun rights.

    You understand that, right?

  • Floridian||

    What is feminism other than human rights? If feminist argue that women should have different or special rights then they don't believe in equality. That puts them in direct opposition to freedom.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're arguing with voices in your head.

  • Floridian||

    Ok. To the voices in my head. My point is there is no need for feminist libertarians, anymore than there is a need for white, black, gay, transgendered, or any other group of libertarians. The label applies to anyone who thinks individuals own themselves. If you really believe in equality any other label is redundant.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You think gay people shouldn't stand up for themselves when the government discriminates against them--if they're libertarian?

    This is absurd.

    Jesus, when there are laws that specifically discriminate against WASPs, I'll stand up for myself and WASPs everywhere--in the name of libertarianism for sure.

    It's almost like you're trying to forge a group identity out of libertarianism.

  • ||

    You think gay people shouldn't stand up for themselves when the government discriminates against them--if they're libertarian?

    Who's arguing with the voices in his head now... jesus fuck.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "My point is there is no need for feminist libertarians, anymore than there is a need for white, black, gay, transgendered, or any other group of libertarians."

    That wasn't a voice in my head.

    The people who arguing with the voices in their heads are the people who are ignoring what Presley wrote:

    "All people of every gender should be able to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives. Nothing else is libertarian."

  • ||

    That wasn't a voice in my head.

    It also isn't related in any way, shape or form to the baffling non-sequitur you spit out in response to it. You somehow managed to make "Libertarians should stand up for everyone's rights" into "Libertarians shouldn't stand up for gay people's rights".

  • SusanM||

    Since being gay or trans (whether it's chosen or not)isn't a political statement in itself there should be no problem identifying as libertarian or even conservative.

    It's a question of means rather than ends. Disagreeing with the means offered by progressive politics doesn't mean that the ends are necessarily wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Someone should also speak up for the women in places that don't enjoy the status and rights of women here in the U.S.

    When the women of India band together in solidarity against the government for refusing to prosecute rapists, I don't think to myself, "Oh, those damn statist feminists are at it again".

    And even for our own sakes, we should be aware that everything from out of control population growth to wars, etc. has been tied to the education of women and opportunities for them to contribute to the economy outside of the home.

    If women from North Africa, to the Middle East and through India to Pakistan had the same educational and career opportunities as men, they'd only be having 1.7 children per family, too, and their local economies would be that much stronger. Labor is a resource, and having more of it available is better. Any country that doesn't make effective use of half of its labor capacity is making things unnecessarily harder for themselves and the rest of the world.

  • ||

    When the women of India band together in solidarity against the government for refusing to prosecute rapists, I don't think to myself, "Oh, those damn statist feminists are at it again".

    Prosecuting rapists isn't (or certainly shouldn't be) a gender issue.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Women being discriminated against by the government isn't a gender issue?

    Are you painting yourself into one of those silly corners again?

  • ||

    Women being discriminated against by the government isn't a gender issue?

    Please, please don't ever try to summarize something I've written in your own words. It stands pretty fucking clearly all in its own:

    Prosecuting rapists isn't (or certainly shouldn't be) a gender issue.

    Address that or don't, but don't substitute your words for mine and then refute them.

  • SIV||

    Incidentally, this would be a great time to rewatch Reason's own Kerry Howley (with Meagan McArdle) on libertarian women:

    Howley is not a libertarian, has disavowed ever being one and maintained she "faked it" to get money from Billionaires.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well that's too bad if it's true. She was a better fake libertarian than a lot of libertarians.

    Of course, I'd like to see a link for that.

  • ||

    It pretty much was a tweet from Howley that Tim Cavanaugh commented on when she left Reason.

    Something along the lines of "the best thing about leaving Reason: no more libertarians."

    I can't find it to be accurate.

  • SIV||

    The tweet is easy to find but the context is lost.

  • ||

    Then find it for me.

  • SIV||

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sounds like it was happening back when the Kochs were in a standoff over Cato.

    Questioning how influential Cato is--isn't saying she faked being a libertarian to get the money.

    Sounds more like she's saying the people at Cato aren't doing enough to justify the money the Kochs were giving them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, more Kerry Howley is always better.

    I wonder what she's up to these days.

    Last I heard, I think she was at that God awful writers' workshop in Iowa.

  • John Galt||

    A true full blood libertarian is a rare animal indeed. So rare it's probable one has not yet been.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Rarer than a one legged bigfoot? Yes, I am referring to the mythical Hopsquatch*.

    * Stolen from someone on Penn Jillette's Sunday School program.

  • Carolynp||

    I absolutely loved that. Thank you.

  • Alan||

    Yes.

    Also, the feminism of the late 1970s and since has so discredited the name that it should be dropped - though the principles could be continued under other names.

    Much the same way that no one wants to be called a fascist anymore, even though most governments around the world ARE fascist.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How did fascism become so discredited?

  • Nooge.||

    If feminist were for equality for all, then they wouldn't be feminist they would be libertarians. You don't need a gender identifier in your movement title if you claim to represent everyone.

    I logged in to say pretty much that. Thanks.

    Modern academic and extreme left-wing feminism is most definitely not about equality for all. It is equal parts fucking insane pity-party, trendy pop-PC psychobabble, and psychotic man-hating bullshit.

    My super-awesome wife, who is an enthusiastic and genuine libertarian, and is just generally a kick-ass person, will no longer say she is a feminist because I showed her shit like Jezebel. She thinks women discussing casual sex as eloquently as drunken little frat boys demeans women a lot more effectively than men ever could.

  • Jerryskids||

    The first problem is that 'feminism', like 'libertarian' and 'fascism' and 'right-wing extremist', can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean and therefore means nothing. It's kinda like saying that the consensus among most serious scientists who do gender research supports your position - as long as you define 'serious scientists' as 'scientists who agree with my position'. How can you argue when the words mean whatever you want them to mean?

    (Note: I don't know enough to argue what the consensus is or is not or whether or not any particular scientist is a 'serious' scientist [beyond arguing that social science ain't science] but that particular sentence just jumps out at me and makes me cringe.)

  • ||

    A Serious Scientist is most assuredly more Serious than any True Scotsman could ever hope to be True.

  • Acosmist||

    Nurture keeps fighting that rearguard action against nature, at least among SOCIAL scientists. The others...not so interested in wasting their time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It was easier to respect the rights of individuals, and only go after the government, when the laws denied women the right to vote, inherit property, etc. It's harder to respect free agency and go after individuals who discriminate against women.

    You simply can't respect individual freedom and stop people from doing things beforehand. In the case of murder, you can try, for instance, by going after people's gun rights--but that's an attack on individual liberty.

    There's impetus like this across the board on all sorts of issues. Because the law already protects most classes of peoples' rights, we're redefining freedom in ways that will let us go after individuals' rights to make choices for themselves.

    We said individuals don't have a right to refuse to serve black people. Now we're saying you don't have a right to discriminate against LGBT--even if not discriminating against them violates your First Amendment rights.

    I don't have to be a racist to support an individual's right to be stupid. I can be an atheist and still respect an individual's right to exercise their religious convictions. I can value people having the freedom to buy handguns--even IF IF IF it means more people are murdered.

    But libertarians are probably unusual that way.

    If there's going to be a feminist movement that values an individual's right to stupidly discriminate against women, then at best, that's probably going to be a really hard sell with the general public. I wish you luck.

  • GILMORE||

    "libertarians are probably unusual that way."

    Unusual?

    'Leaving people alone' has not been the distinguishing feature of most political philosophy to date.

  • SusanM||

    "Leaving people alone". It's a nice concept, as long as everyone agrees on what "people" are.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    "Humanism' is the theory that women are people. 'Feminism' is the theory that women are men.

  • Carolynp||

    I think it is. It amazes me how many people genuinely want to tell other people what to do. Even when you point out what a clusterfark they've made of their own life, they seem to think they can adequately tell someone else what to do.

  • GILMORE||

    ""Is feminism salvageable?""

    I'm not sure any 'ism' that is about elevating biological differences to the level of religion is something worth 'salvaging'.

    (of course, many people feel the same way about religion writ large, but that's besides the point)

    I've generally thought that real discussion can only begin when personal material issues are set aside/transcended. (I think John Rawls had a good idea with that 'original position' thing) The idea personal race or gender (or whatever) should be HIGHLIGHTED and made the primary lens for all discussions/debate strikes me as the complete opposite of Rawls requirement, and possibly the most useless, selfish, and infantile form of human thought still offered as a University Major.

    Seriously = you are an employer choosing between candidates with respective degrees in Puppetry, and Womens-Studies.

    Puppetry requires coordination, and entertains children. Hired.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'm not sure any 'ism' that is about elevating biological differences to the level of religion is something worth 'salvaging'."

    There's a question about whether the label "feminist" can be salvaged for marketing purposes to promote libertarian ideas, but whether women can fight for the freedom they care about and still call themselves libertarian isn't at issue.

    Ut's important to point out, like what I was saying in my post above, that we're talking about libertarians fighting for "feminist" ideas--in regards to individual behavior.

    We're not talking about using the state to fight for women. She's talking about advocating liberation from a feminist perspective.

    And this is our purpose as libertarians. If we're not talking about seizing the levers of power and forcing libertarianism on everyone by using the coercive power of government, then we're talking about changing people's ideas through argument, culture, and advocacy.

    The way to achieve a more libertarian world is through engaging the culture--winning hearts and minds. Whether women CAN do that for libertarianism in the name of feminism shouldn't even be a debate. The only question is whether the "feminist" label SHOULD still be used--because "feminist" has become so thoroughly associated with state control.

    ...so thoroughly that my fellow libertarians--even in this thread--are having trouble separating the two in their own libertarian minds.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    If by 'seizing', you mean 'destroying', I'm right there with you.

  • ||

    Maybe Sommers is wrong about what "many, perhaps most" women want. But it doesn't matter. Libertarians have the same policy proscription if 99% want to race with the rats or if 99% would rather change diapers. The 1% or whatever percent (either way) should have the same opportunities to define their lives regardless how other women choose to define theirs.

    Outside of tarring adversaries with the "brainwashed" brush, does Ms. Sommers err in her policy recommendations? Sharon repeatedly levels an accusing FAIL finger at her, but doesn't catalog anything of libertarian concern.

  • Alan||

    I think "many, perhaps most" is fair.

    Undoubtedly many women would prefer a traditional role. The only question is whether that is "most" - a point Sommers herself acknowledges. It is also not a simple thing to judge - many of the women now seeking a career may have been pushed into it by feelings of solidarity with their female peers and social expectations, much the same way they once would have been pushed away from such careers by social expectations. Even the fact that many women wish to work does not necessarily mean those same women want a career. They may simply want to get out of the house for a while, and prefer part time jobs - or they may simply need the money.

    The real point is that we should not be pressuring women into making one choice or the other, but encouraging them (and men) to make such choices for themselves. The current vogue in feminism is to praise women only when they take on stereotypically masculine roles - and surely that cannot be a good thing for many, perhaps most women.

  • SIV||

    This raises two questions for libertarians: Is feminism salvageable?

    No, as you answer here:

    We should be looking at the merits and choices of each person as an individual, not as a member of a particular biological group.

  • SusanM||

    We should be looking at the merits and choices of each person as an individual, not as a member of a particular biological group.

    Good idea! Which side starts first?

  • SIV||

    Ask Sharon, it is her quote.

  • SusanM||

    I Will.

  • ||

    The side that doesn't see individuals as members of a "side", probably. So, uh, not you I guess.

  • SusanM||

    Everyone involved sees it as a "side". Hence, my question.

  • ||

    Everyone involved sees it as a "side". Hence, my question.

    You actually introduced the concept to the discussion in your question, but, uh... okay.

  • ||

    "Feminism", like any group-identity-based movement, is purely collectivist. It's unfortunately human nature to break into groups, but frankly, anyone who actually cares about individuality and actual liberty for all will resist such impulses. If you don't, you're really not interested in liberty, just comparative advantage based on some arbitrary thing like skin color or gender.

  • Floridian||

    Thank you. This is what I was trying to convey to ken, but was evidently doing a poor job of.

  • ||

    I would suggest ignoring Ken. Anything else is a waste of your time.

  • Floridian||

    Alright.
    /does Incredible Hulk slow walk away.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Feminism", like any group-identity-based movement, is purely collectivist."

    It's only collectivist insofar as it seeks to use the state to force people to do things against their will.

    It was easier for feminists when the government was actively discriminating against them--just like gay people fighting for gay marriage isn't necessarily collectivist.

    When LGBT people are fighting against a state that is actively discriminating against them, they are not being collectivist--even if they're an identity based movement.

    Feminists are like that, too. If they're fighting for a woman's right to make choices for herself, as an individual, they're not collectivist.

    And it's strategically idiotic to leave that part of the battlefield to the statists. For those of you who haven't been paying attention, one of the reasons libertarians are marginalized is because in the public's imagination, we're associated with the right, hostility to LGBT, ethnic minorities, women, etc.

  • PaulW||

    It's only collectivist insofar as it seeks to use the state to force people to do things against their will.

    No fucking shit, which makes it collectivist, are you kidding me with that argument?

    And no, libertarians are not associated with the hostility to gays especially, we were fighting for their rights long before it was cool.

    We're marginalized often because there are people like you who are inept at conveying our actual stances, and we look hypocritical.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And no, libertarians are not associated with the hostility to gays especially, we were fighting for their rights long before it was cool."

    Most people don't know that.

    They think we're some kind of extremist Republican.

    They think we're some kind of Tea Party flavor, and they associate the Tea Party with racism and hostility to LGBT, too.

    I wish people saw us the way we are, but they don't. And, by the way, making sure we're hostile to women who want to be libertarian feminists is a great way to reenforce that bad stereotype.

    Certainly, very few people look at us and say that we have a nuanced view, that although libertarians are in favor of women being treated as individuals, they don't support using the coercive force of the state to infringe on people's right to be stupid.

    Nah, they don't think that at all. They just see that we're hostile to feminism--even libertarian feminism?--and they think we're hostile to the rights of women.

  • PaulW||

    The point we as libertarians try and drive home about equality is true equality.

    That is one of the basics of our ideology, are we supposed to abandon that to make feminists or the NAACP or any other group feel like we're on their side?

    Fact is, we're not on their side, we are on nobodies side except the individual.

    That is something that they, as groups, cannot stand. We would do away with the privileges that they have garnered through government force just as readily as the chauvinists and the racists would, but we would do so for completely different reasons, and we would expect equality under the law.

    So, sorry, we are not allied with them in many of their causes. But, I will say that you are right in that we do need to do a better job in explaining exactly why we are not allied with them hand in hand.

    Sure, we can take up some of their causes, which we do regularly if it fits our principles of equality for all. If they want me to change my principles for their own advantages through the law, frankly, they can piss off.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you read the article?

  • ||

    Pointing to the article for a working definition of feminism that it doesn't contain is pretty stupid, even for you. You're assuming a conclusion in your premise.

    Identity groups may overlap with libertarianism, but they aren't the concern of libertarianism. It's a political ideology, not a social philosophy. Libertarianism isn't feminist because none of the tenets of libertarianism is gender-based. The NAP is unisex. It's also, for example, a-religious. So there's no such thing as Buddhist libertarianism or Christian libertarianism or atheist libertarianism (despite what you might think from the comments here). You can identify with any of those groups and also identify as libertarian, but they don't need to be referred to together because the identity group and the political ideology have nothing to do with one another.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Pointing to the article for a working definition of feminism that it doesn't contain is pretty stupid, even for you."

    And starting out with a straw man and a personal attack is standard operating procedure with you.

    "You're assuming a conclusion in your premise."

    Actually, not having read the article is the simplest explanation for this statement:

    "If they want me to change my principles for their own advantages through the law, frankly, they can piss off."

    ...which is why I asked.

    "Libertarianism isn't feminist because none of the tenets of libertarianism is gender-based."

    But some of the tenets of oppression have been gender-based, historically, in this country--and they still are in other countries.

    Incidentally, someone starting from pretty much the premise of this article--and then criticizing it for not starting from that premise? Is highly indicative of someone who hasn't read the article.

    Did you bother to read the article?

    I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming the answer is no. If you actually read this article and your real response is that you don't like feminism because it isn't libertarian, then that's much worse than not having read the article--because that would mean you don't understand what you read.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here are a couple of things you would have read--if you had bothered to read the article:

    "If feminists want to reject "all forms of oppression as a whole," then from a libertarian perspective, coercive government is inconsistent with that goal. Instead, we argue that feminism should dispense with government favoritism and privilege, focusing instead on mutual aid and private alternatives."

    "All people of every gender should be able to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives. Nothing else is libertarian."

    "Sommers' interpretations are geared toward her ideological beliefs rather than what either history or social science actually suggest. Her "freedom feminism" has nothing to offer to feminism, let alone libertarian feminism."

    Responding to these statements with the observation that "feminism isn't libertarian" is mostly likely indicative of either a) not having read the article or b) a remedial level of reading comprehension.

  • PaulW||

    ORRRRRRRRR, we read the article and do not agree with the premise of it. You are acting like agreeing with the author is a prerequisite for commenting here. It is not.

    The author is trying to redefine feminism to fit it with the libertarian philosophy, which, sorry it does not. Her type of "feminism" is simply libertarianism for girls. Why make the distinction? And what does such a distinction do other than create assumptions that the ideology is more important for certain groups?

    Besides, in our country at least, what more can feminism do for libertarianism? There is already equal protection getting fucked by the law among genders in our country. Are there social issues that need to be addressed? Certainly, but the law absolutely does not need to be addressed unless you are searching for advantage.

    In other words, libertarian feminism is a non sequitur. It is pointless because the ideology of libertarianism already espouses everything that is the author's ridiculous assertion of what feminism is. Which, by the way, is like claiming liberals are libertarians because they were 50 years ago.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you realize that the article is about criticizing mainline feminism for being insufficiently libertarian, then that's great.

    But let's not criticize the article for elevating the rights of women to some special status and calling it libertarian--the article explicitly rejects that.

    We also probably shouldn't go after libertarian feminism for requiring some interference from the state to improve the lot of women either--since the article explicitly rejects that, too.

    As an aside, I don't think I'd use the word "redefine" in regards to libertarian feminism; according to her bio on Wiki, Dr. Presley has been a libertarian feminist since at least the mid-1970s.

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

    If she redefined "feminism" so as to be compatible with libertarianism, she did it some forty years ago. If anything, maybe it's our conception of feminism that needs to redefined.

    I'm certainly not about to buy that caring about women's problems and rights is inherently unlibertarian--not just because you guys say so. And there is no reason why libertarianism shouldn't be able to provide excellent solutions to women's problems, too.

  • PaulW||

    The idea of her being there first is fair enough, but that is like those Conservatives who stay Democrats forever just because they always were.

    The movement was hijacked, it is time to move on from it because it is no longer about equality, it is about advantage and man bashing. Dr. Presley I'm sure understands that, why she hangs on to the word feminism is beyond me.

  • PACW||

    I liked it better when it was more man-bashing. But since then the feminists defended Clinton and attacked Flowers and Lewinsky as being predators. They defended Polanski. They left their beloved Hilary for Barack Obama. And they've always hated Ayn Rand.

    But I agree that it's time to move on with regard to trying to find common ground and join forces.

  • PaulW||

    Basically, she argues that the conservative idea of feminism is wrong and it should be libertarian feminism, which I totally understand where Dr. Presley is coming from on that, but the point most of us are making is that feminism is simply feminism and it is not conducive to libertarianism.

    Even if Dr. Presley got her way and it turned into "libertarian feminism", again, what is the point? Shouldn't the argument be that hey if you care about justice and equality, dump the idea of feminism because it has been tarnished beyond all recognition and become a libertarian, because we are and always have been the true champions of equality, from civil rights to suffrage to slavery, etc, etc.?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Shouldn't the argument be that hey if you care about justice and equality, dump the idea of feminism because it has been tarnished beyond all recognition and become a libertarian, because we are and always have been the true champions of equality, from civil rights to suffrage to slavery, etc, etc.?"

    Too many points to address in one post. I'll try to hit a couple.

    1) You need to distinguish between the name brand "feminism" and what feminism actually is. If feminism is about women's rights and freedoms to make choices for themselves, then protecting those is certainly libertarian.

    2a) You're not taking the nature of advocacy into consideration. Doherty one wrote something to the effect that the main purpose of libertarianism has always been to make more libertarians.

    What you're effectively suggesting is that targeted marketing is somehow unlibertarian. The fact is that people come to libertarianism--initially--for all sorts of reasons. Feminism happens to appeal to one subset of those reasons, and there is no good reason not to market libertarianism to those people.

  • Ken Shultz||

    2b) Very few of us were born full-bodied libertarians. There were a few issues we cared about, and we learned more about the rest of libertarianism as we went along. And purity tests are an impediment to bringing new libertarians into the fold. Libertarian isn't a lifestyle choice or a group identity to me.

    I want to live in a more libertarian world in my lifetime, and that requires making people--who aren't libertarian now--more libertarian in the future. The all-libertarian-or-nothing exclusive approach is road block on the way to a more libertarian world.

    3) Nothing being advocated in this article under the term " libertarian feminist" in any way conflicts with the basic precepts of libertarianism.

    The only collectivists here are the libertarians who are trying to turn our movement into some kind of exclusive group identity.

  • PaulW||

    1) The name brand is what it is. I'm all for getting women to our brand, but not by placing our brand next to the brand of feminism. I think you are really failing to grasp this concept. Feminism no longer means those things you say, much like the world liberal no longer means what it used to.

    2) Good points, but your style is off. One of our major principles is our blindness to color/gender/religion/etc. Allying ourselves with a failed brand such as feminism gives off exactly the wrong image of what it means to be a libertarian. Convince women by other means than claiming we're feminists because we redefined the term or are taking it back Clerks 2 style. There is no purity test from me.

    3)No, not saying it does. Again, I'm saying I'd rather not associate myself or our ideology with anything as bastardly lefticized as feminism. We have much better virtues to our ideology that should be palpable to women. And you're right in that we do need more women to get that message out.

  • ||

    If feminism is about women's rights and freedoms to make choices for themselves, then protecting those is certainly libertarian.

    I know I'm way late in responding, but:

    Libertarianism is about everyone's rights and freedoms to make choices for themselves, so IF you define feminism as such, libertarianism already contains it and it's redundant to reframe it as a gender issue. That's the sticking point for everybody who's commented here besides you and the author. Proof positive, of course, that nobody else is a deep enough thinker to possibly have comprehended the argument at the same level you did. That's gotta be it. Nobody else understands. Yep.

  • ||

    Here are a couple of things you would have read--if you had bothered to read the article:

    Late in replying again, but since the only substance of your arguments so far have been contained in that one sentence, it's worth addressing:

    The problem isn't anybody else's comprehension of the article, it's your total and complete incomprehension of the arguments being made in reference to it. Which is that once you've defined feminism as the NAP, it's fucking libertarianism. It's not gender exclusive and it doesn't need to be. That's not how mainline feminism defines feminism, btw, but that's tangential to the actual point. If you define feminism in the ways the author defines it, it is not distinguishable in any way from libertarianism, and the gender qualifier becomes meaningless and pointless, unless you are of the opinion that the NAP should only apply to some particular gender.

    We get that she believes in equality, okay? THAT'S THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT! The kind of equality she describes, and the way in which she wishes to achieve it, is deontological libertarianism. It applies to women, blacks, Sikhs, gays, hermaphroditic midget porn star Jews for Jesus, or any other identity group you could possibly think of or invent. IF you define feminism as the author does (which, again, is a highly unorthodox conception of the term), then "feminist libertarian" is as redundant as "Christian Catholic" -- it's meaningless.

  • B Walker||

    Really enjoying your comments Ken, I appreciate very much, thanks.

  • WPIAGROTJB||

    More cultural marxist bullshit from cultural marxist reason.com

  • Irish||

    Shut the fuck up, American.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Who is this 'American' and 'Mary' you guys keep referring to and how do you know it's them?

  • ||

    Rufus, this is too long of a subject to enter into here, but if you want some answers, feel free to email me at the address under my handle. I'll write back when I'm more free later.

  • Nooge.||

    Who is this 'American' and 'Mary' you guys keep referring to and how do you know it's them?

    American is a weird little douche who likes to hate on the JOOS and brown people. Easy to spot and easy to ignore.

    Mary refers to Mary Stack, a deranged and genuinely disturbed chick who (sad to say) was a contributing factor to introducing registration. She ruthlessly spammed and trolled 24/7 for a while, basically rendering the comments unusable and unreadable.

    She's got a couple YouTube channels devoted to something something hating Reason. Seriously. She had a blog but some intrepid Internet sleuths outed her and she kinda sorta tried to disappear. But not really.

    She's a really sad and pathetic person. She needs help.

    Ignore both at all times and do not engage.

  • ||

    cultural marxist

    What does that even mean?

  • Nooge.||

    Culture for all! Or something.

  • OneOut||

    But some cultures are more better than other cultures.

    I think.

  • Nooge.||

    My culture belongs to everybody. Or something. Hope you all like metal, arty film shit, and Enochiana.

  • OldMexican||

    Of course most women (and men) want families, but that doesn't mean they can't want careers too.


    The Law of Opportunity Cost or of conflicting choices says otherwise. There's a reason why many feminists want government-funded "quality daycare."

    Nor does she back up her claims about the "differences" between women and men. In fact, the consensus among most serious scientists who do gender research— neuroscientist Lise Eliot, psychologist Janet Hyde, neuropsychologist Melissa Hines, and biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, for example — is that the behavioral and cognitive differences between women and men are not nearly as great as the average person (or Sommers) imagines.


    This is an extraordinary claim considering that men and women have lived and grown together for thousands of generations, that our brains are wired to find and recognize patterns and that authors and philosophers have written and reported on these differences for millenia. So if the general public sees differences between men and women on how they act, it can be surmised it is for a good reason and thus cannot be dismissed like that just because a couple of scientists (and a quack) say that there aren't, the very vague qualifier "not as great" only serving to muddle the waters.

  • SIV||

    I'm counting at least two quacks by credentials alone but it is quite possible none of them are practicing science by any meaningful definition of the term.

  • lap83||

    "The Law of Opportunity Cost or of conflicting choices says otherwise."

    Probably the biggest disservice to women from feminism was the idea that it's possible to have a great career without cutting into the time you spend with your family. Then, once it became clear that it was impossible to balance work and family, women were told they should WANT to neglect their family in service to their careers.

    http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/.....work-less/

    Never mind the fact that most mothers don't want to work full-time. That must be a Teapublican conspiracy.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    ^this^

    For more information see therationalmale.com

  • Ann N||

    I like the part where scientists claim differences are smaller than public imagines.

    That is fucking unbelievable that this is where science is today.

  • JWatts||

    "That is fucking unbelievable that this is where science is today."

    It's from the Social Sciences. Which resembles Science about as much as Alchemy resembles Chemistry.

  • JWatts||

    This article was very shoddy. I have no idea if the book reviewed is any good or not. All I know is that the author of the review went off on an emotional ideological rant and thinly disguised the results as logic.

  • lap83||

    Feminism is a coffee klatch for statists. You can call yourself a feminist without being a statist, but you'll have no impact because you don't have the support of the gossip-y hen community. It's delusional and sad, like a nerd in high school trying to join the popular kids group by introducing them to MTG.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Forgive my ignorance, but does feminism really matter anymore? I'm sure plenty of women don't even agree with much of the feminist platform - my wife being one of them.

    I just don't see the importance as they certainly don't advance or contribute to the cause of individual liberty. If you have individual liberty and respect it, there's no need for people to seclude themselves into ideological clans.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Yes, it does matter, especially in the courts. See therationalmale.com

  • ||

    The vast majority of humans, when oppressed, do not wish for liberty, but instead to exchange places with their oppressors. I think it is because they don't know the difference. I find that many of those people can't distinguish between a lot of subtly different concepts.

  • John Galt||

    Since revenge is more often the name of the game, and the formerly oppressed so often carry their ugly work out with a zeal their former oppressors lacked, maybe adopting a cast system to prevent escalation would be the humane thing to do?

  • ||

    I am hung over so I'm slow.

    I don't think limiting anyone's opportunities by any standard other than their actual abilities is humane.

    Maybe I don't understand your suggestion.

  • Nooge.||

    The vast majority of humans, when oppressed, do not wish for liberty, but instead to exchange places with their oppressors.

    Yep.

    Actual liberty is terrifying.

  • Kevin47||

    Does the author say that women do not want careers at all? Because that is not the same as saying women are inclined to elevate domestic pursuits. I suspect this review is hacking at straw men.

  • PaulW||

    So, who here wouldn't enjoy having your woman take care of you monetarily while you stayed at home and raised the kids? The stresses of work and commuting, etc exchanged for the stresses of raising a child?

    Probably most would think that would be a great deal, others would be too ambitious to settle for such.

    Not any different for women. But I feel feminism does a disservice to women in the sense that child rearing is no longer really an option without being stigmatized by society.

    The biggest problem is that it doesn't free the man to do such, as women still want a man to provide for them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure marriages in which the woman is the provider end up not lasting anywhere near as long as marriages in which the man is the provider, and this is a social problem with women, not men.

    Then, you get the problem where a man is willing to provide for the woman and family as a whole while the woman stays at home, but the woman still expects the man to cook, clean, get up with the kids, etc. This set up I've seen a million times with my friends, and I refuse even think of allowing my wife to ever stay home. I'd rather both contribute as far as money and chores rather than being a slave to a woman. Not that I think my wife would do that, cuz she is pretty awesome, but I also thought my buddies' wives were awesome until they got the chance to stay at home.

  • PaulW||

    By "allow" I mean that she can certainly do that, but it would never be with me in the picture. :)

  • Kevin47||

    "So, who here wouldn't enjoy having your woman take care of you monetarily while you stayed at home and raised the kids?"

    I wouldn't. In my experience, the women who would prefer to say home substantially outnumber the men, even among my more progressive friends.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I know of several friends who ended up being the stay at home parent because their wives made much more than them. All of them are still together, so I don't think that that leads to a sure fire breakup.

    The only thing that they all complain about is that their wives all have episodic fits where they (the wives) feel horrible because they feel like they should be more nurturing.

    When we had kids my wife staid home and raised them. For us it was important to have our kids raised by us not some daycare provider. So far all of them have turned out great (smart and well adjusted unlike me).

  • B Walker||

    Thanks very much for taking the time to respond to Christina Hoff-Sommers misleading, ideological bent, poorly constructed work Dr Presley. Enjoyed reading your article, many of the links I am familiar with that research also, can recommend as excellent.

  • Sharon Presley||

    Thank you, Ken Shultz, for your reasonable remarks. For those of you who can't imagine how a libertarian can be a feminist, instead of dogmatically asserting this, why not look at the website of the Association of Libertarian Feminists [www.alf.org], an organization that has been in existence since 1973. You won't find anything unlibertarian there.
    As for why we need such groups, perhaps you've heard of the division of labor? There are many facets to the libertarian movement. We need people to work on all the facets. As Ken says, shall we not work for the rights of gays because that's an identity group? Let's work for the rights of gays, transgender people, blacks, whites, Hispanics, everybody. But let each do in it in their own way. The uphill battle that libertarians face is too immense not to have people working on many different facets. That's just good strategy.
    Were the 19th century individualist feminists that I wrote about "bad" because they struggled to obtain rights specifically for women? No, of course not. They were the first feminists. Now we follow in their footsteps to try to bring back individualist feminism. Not the conservative, stereotyped alleged feminism of Sommers but the individualist feminism that sees every single individual as an individual and not as a stereotype. That understands that government paternalism is wrong. What could be more libertarian?

  • GILMORE||

    "look at the website of the Association of Libertarian Feminists [www.alf.org], an organization that has been in existence since 1973."

    OMG

    hawt

    •encourage women to become economically self-sufficient

    •encourage women to be psychologically independent

    •publicize and promote realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential

    •oppose the abridgement of individual rights by any government on the basis of gender

    •work toward changing sexist attitudes and behavior exhibited by individuals

    •provide a libertarian alternative to those aspects of the women's movement that discourage independence and individuality

    What happens when you replace 'women' with 'people'? SEXISM?

    Why the world needs ALF, I do not understands. I guess this is the big, 'where are all the REASON CHICKS' question. And please don't tell me its because we're all dorks. I object to that. I'm very good looking.

    I'm also a pussy hair* away from wanting to start calling myself a CISMALE or something just to make people realize how fucking stupid 99% of this gender-conscious narcissism really is.

    *(SEXIST USE OF FEMALE BODY)

  • GILMORE||

    Quick question, Sharon =

    How do you feel about Thomas Hardy?

  • B Walker||

    Christina Hoff-Sommer's has history of/with people scrutinizing her 'claims', Dr Presley's response is but one:

    E. Anthony Rotundo, (author of "American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era,") writes:

    Excerpt- "Examined carefully, Sommers's case does not hold up well.

    She persistently misrepresents scholarly debate, ignores evidence that contradicts her assertions + directs intense scrutiny at studies she opposes while giving a free critical ride to research she supports."

    Link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ys0703.htm

    Little more: "In the end, Sommers fails to prove either claim in the title of her book. She does not show that there is a "war against boys." All she can show is that feminists are attacking her "boys-will-be-boys" concept of boyhood, just as she attacks their more flexible notion. The difference between attacking a concept + attacking millions of real children is both enormous + patently obvious. Sommers's title, then, is not just wrong but inexcusably misleading---- Sommers's book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic. Sommers focuses less on boys than on the feminists and cultural liberals against whom she has a long-standing animus. As a society, we sorely need a discussion of boyhood that is thoughtful and searching. This intemperate book is a hindrance to such conversation. '"

  • rogerfgay||

    There are lots of fruits engaged in discussion of men and manliness. Some, labeling themselves as Men's Rights Activists and representing themselves as academics and teachers in gender studies are homosexual activists pushing acceptance of a goofball feminist model for men. More then once, such people have ended this phase of their lives with a sex change operation.

  • B Walker||

    Dr Michael Kimmel also had an interesting discussion with Christina Hoff-Sommers:

    Do boys face more sexism than girls http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....45801.html

    Here is another critical response to her work, complete with citations and an opportunity to check up on her use of research:

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....mers2.html

    "Appendix to Elizabeth Anderson’s Review of Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology (Pinnick, Koertge, and Almeder 2003): Christina Hoff Sommers’ “Where the Boys Are”

    Christina Hoff Sommers’ chapter, “Where the Boys Are” has nothing to say about feminist epistemology, feminist philosophy of science, or feminist science studies. It engages no philosophical issues. Instead, it is an attack on a few pieces of feminist research that claim to find gender differences in mental health and gender inequity in the schools. Presumably it is intended as a case study in how feminist-inspired research is done, attempting to demonstrate that it is false and politically biased....
    ...Sommers claims that the feminist education researchers paint a misleading picture by ignoring boys’ difficulties in school. But Sommers’ own work misrepresents the research she criticizes.[1] Let us count the ways."

  • Sharon Presley||

    Thank you for these posts but I get the feeling that almost no one except Ken cares about anything here except being what they pathetically imagine to be cute. I've been a libertarian longer than most of these little darlings have been alive. And they imagine they know SO much. They know nothing.

  • ||

    How very inclusive, non-stereotyping, and individualistic.

    "Agree with my identity politics or you're pathetic and not a real libertarian!"

    You couldn't have more perfectly encapsulated why those who disagree with you disagree with you. Excellent job.

  • David Wall||

    Cute.

  • PaulW||

    Wrong, the problem is that there is a new definition of the word feminism, and it means completely different things to you as it does to the rest of us. Yes, probably because of your experiences, but it is 2014 now. It is what it is.

    It is a good article, and I hope you do not assume we all hate you for writing it, quite the contrary, this has generated some awesome discussion and is very helpful in getting us to determine our exact stances. I agree with many of Ken's points and your own points.

    The thing you have to realize is that feminism as it currently stands is anti-libertarian and anti-male, which sadly most of us libertarians are male, so we take especial offense to it.

    What you espouse is fine and dandy, but what we're all saying is that we want to just be all libertarians, we do not want to be known as black libertarians or woman libertarians. We want to be race blind, religion blind, and gender blind. That is a very key aspect of our ideology as it is today. Division of labor is great, but what is the point in dividing labor into interest groups based on those things that we want to be blind to? Those divisions of labor can be reduced to less controversial things as gender or race and into things such as suffrage or marijuana or 2nd Amendment or 4th amendment, etc. etc.

  • JWatts||

    "Thank you for these posts but I get the feeling that almost no one except Ken cares about anything here except being what they pathetically imagine to be cute. I've been a libertarian longer than most of these little darlings have been alive. And they imagine they know SO much. They know nothing."

    Calling people "pathetically cute" and "little darlings" is not going to win you much respect on a web site called Reason.

  • XM||

    Aren't libertarians (and some conservatives) actually the ones to embrace the equal "different but equal" concept? Aren't they OK with firehouses hiring more men than women, since men are typically better physically equipped carry the victim out of burning houses?

    Distressed usually don't say "I want my daddy". At a school where I taught, if they needed to go to the bathroom, they'll ask for a female teacher. Women definitely have an advantage over men in the domestic sphere, private or public. That's why most nannies are women.

    If you're a feminist, then you'll be disgusted by the idea of a woman possibly abandoning her career for the sake of the kids - even if your job is a dead end, and your husband makes more money than you, and your kids want to spend more time with mom. But if the situation was reversed and the husband decided to be a stay home dad, then oh, what a positive statement!

    That's why feminists don't like libertarians. In a free market system, a woman's ambitions or particular goal might be dashed if there's no demand. I would skip gender studies classes if I could, or choose not to hire ANY pregnant woman to avoid not paying for maternity leave.

  • David Wall||

    Not all feminist are lock-step. Old 70s Feminist, Camille Pagilia seems more libertarian with each article & would likely agree with you.

    http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/.....s-will-be/

  • PaulW||

    No, not "different but equal".

    Equal under the law, always. No special circumstances to gain advantage or even any playing field.

    Purpose of which is that the efficiency of the free market along with equality in justice and the law will create a society in which every individual must work with their strengths.

    Does this end up being a society in which women are less apt to do jobs that require a large amount of physical strength? Yes. Does it end up being a society where women dominate jobs in which multi-tasking is needed? Yes.

    The question is, why is that considered a bad thing? Especially if you believe, as I do, and most libertarians do, that we are all capable of doing anything we want to. So what if a woman needs to work harder to get the physical strength to be a fire fighter than the average male? There are males out there who are less strong than most women, do we give them advantage, too, in the work force?

  • Ann N||

    'different but equal' is the same thing as 'seaparate but equal'.

    Title IX is the same thing as racial segregation. Gender bathrooms is the same thing as racial segregation.

    You might be tempted to think the distinction has no animus or bias, but the reality is that its ALWAYS men who get the bad deal.

    Have you EVER seen a men's bathroom that was better than the women's? Have you EVER seen Title IX promote male equality?

    Separate but equal is a scheme to reward women for inferior merit. What is the basis for reward then? cuz vagina.

    This is the antithesis of equality, and its guiltlessly pushed by feminism.

    As a cause, its morally bankrupt.

    Govt recognition of identity is problematic. More recognition of identity only worsens the situation.

  • SusanJWong||

    my best friend's mother makes $82 hourly on the internet. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $14496 just working on the internet for a few hours. find out this here
    http://www.cash46.com

  • SusanJWong||

    my best friend's mother makes $82 hourly on the internet. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $14496 just working on the internet for a few hours. find out this here
    http://www.cash46.com

  • John C. Randolph||

    Some libertarians look askance at feminism, seeing it only as a leftist push to use the state to benefit women.

    Not quite. More like, it's a leftist push to use women to benefit the state.

    -jcr

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Sjhould it not be important to make a distinction between negative rights and positive rights?

  • rogerfgay||

    Over many years of exposure to the writings of Christina Hoff Sommers, she's consistently been among the most honest, intelligent and knowledgable writers under the feminist label. Although I haven't read everything she's ever written, I'm surprised to see anyone suggest that her views are not acceptable to the libertarian camp. Liberty does not suggest a prescribed fit for the masses, but rather allowing people to be who they are according to their own choices and preferences. Denying that men and women are different is just way too bizarre, and I can see how it easily conflicts with reality and therefore also what Christina Hoff Sommers offers.

  • دردشة عراقنا1||

    I care about guns, for all Americans.
    I care about drugs, for all Americans.
    I care about taxes, for all Americans.

  • BrielleYousifage||

    my neighbor's aunt makes 68 dollars/hour on the laptop. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her pay check was 15377 dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the full info here

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    http://www.tec30.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