Feminism

Why Libertarian Feminism?

Libertarian feminism provides a basis to oppose both sexism and statism.

|

My January column at Libertarianism.org is one part personal feminist libertarian manifesto, one part plea for people who care about individual liberty not to instinctually shy away (or run screaming) from all things feminist. Though many believe feminism is an ideology demanding state action, there's nothing necessary or natural about this, I argue. In fact, many of the earliest advocates for gender equality and women's autonomy did so from an individualist perspective.

Unfortunately, that tradition seems to have gotten away from us. Let's bring it back! Libertarianism can still provide a lens through which to view gender issues, and in doing so help counter a more coercive, carceral feminism that's popular in the 21st century. From my column: 

… absent an alternative sort of feminism, people inclined to recognize and want to remedy gendered inequalities and double standards—especially young people—may be drawn to progressive solutions reflexively or out of necessity. Libertarian feminism seeks to provide an alternative way of viewing these issues, one that emphasizes the negative, unintended consequences of increased government intervention and policing power. It can provide a jumping-off point for considering less coercive, less reactionary, and less rights-infringing solutions; be a third-way between patriarchy-preserving social conservatism and the intolerant, illiberal feminists sometimes referred to as "social justice warriors" these days.

And for libertarians, a feminist perspective can enrich the scope of our battle to lessen government coercion and maximize liberty. Libertarian feminists bring overlooked or under-emphasized issues into the liberty movement, such as reproductive freedom (not just abortion but things like making birth control available over-the-counter, state coercion of pregnant women, surrogacy law, and the emerging legal issues surrounding things like IVF and artificial wombs), state overreach into parenting, the over-regulation of female-heavy occupations, how decriminalizing sex work fits into overall criminal-justice reform efforts, and the growth of women as a percentage of millennial libertarians.

I also scoff at the charge that libertarian feminism is nothing but "identity politics." Libertarian feminist political concerns fit comfortably within general opposition to over-regulation, over-criminalization, over-policing, and an overly coercive and powerful state.

On a broader level, releasing people from strongly gendered expectations is a good way to maximize liberty, happiness, and human flourishing, I argue.  

(Libertarian feminism) doesn't require abandoning "traditional" gender roles or presumptions within personal relationships, and certainly not forbidding them. No one should be forced to have an egalitarian marriage, to have sex in any particular way, etc., so long as it is voluntary. Feminism is concerned with enforcing societal norms of equality, not mandating it between adult individuals who consent to cede it; about expanding the realm of choice, not favoring any particular choices.

Read the whole thing here. For some other libertarian pespectives on feminism, see these previous Reason pieces from Zenon Evans, Sharon Presley, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Kerry Howley, Cathy Young, Noah BerlatskyHowley again, and Virginia Postrel

Advertisement

NEXT: Zach Weissmueller on California's 'Cruel and Unusual' Prisons

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.

  1. “I also scoff at the charge that libertarian feminism is nothing but “identity politics.””

    Scoff!

    “releasing people from strongly gendered expectations”

    And so the late 20th-Century Feminist Crusade to reduce the English language to a series of fuzzy, distorted, emotion-tones continues unabated.

    I kid, but really: ‘enforcing societal norms of equality’? Does this call for a boycott of Valentine’s Day?

    1. I don’t think that’s what she’s saying. The end of the article specifically says:

      (Libertarian feminism) doesn’t require abandoning “traditional” gender roles or presumptions within personal relationships, and certainly not forbidding them. No one should be forced to have an egalitarian marriage, to have sex in any particular way, etc., so long as it is voluntary.

      Her point is that you should be allowed to engage in whatever gender roles you want and if those gender roles are traditional or freaky deeky, you shouldn’t be looked down on for doing it.

      I agree with her. I just don’t think it’s a feminist argument so much as a libertarian one.

      1. I agree with her. I just don’t think it’s a feminist argument so much as a libertarian one.

        That was my first thought as well, butI think that it is a matter of what your particular hobbyhorses are. It’s difficult, probably impossible, to be hyperactive on every front in the battle for liberty. I see a lot of value in a libertarian feminism that would be motivated to take back ground from the control freaks and statists that have come to utterly dominate that part of American social and political discussion. Whatever disagreements I might have with ENB and others of her stripe, I think that they are doing necessary and frequently thankless work advancing the cause of liberty in their own field.

        1. @dances-with-trolls Belatedly looking through these comments, but ….awww. Thank you.

      2. Her point is that you should be allowed to engage in whatever gender roles you want

        I agree with that.

        and if those gender roles are traditional or freaky deeky, you shouldn’t be looked down on for doing it.

        I disagree with that. If Jim Bob and Mary Sue want to look down on deviant sex because it makes baby Jesus cry, it’s now of my damn business. Once they cross that all-important line of trying to impose their views on the rest of us, then I start to care.

        1. yes, but what if Mary-Bob gets depressed and throws themselves in traffic?

          Can’t we throw “its” parents in prison for their strongly gendered expectations?

        2. I disagree with that. If Jim Bob and Mary Sue want to look down on deviant sex because it makes baby Jesus cry, it’s now of my damn business“… if they try to move the levers of power to enforce their preferences through state supported coercion. FIFY

          Someone telling me that they think my non-violent, non-coercive choices offend them or telling me that those choices offend their deity of choice does not infringe on my natural rights in any way, in fact I support their rights to tell my what they think… so long as my right to tell them to get bent is respected as well.

      3. ” I just don’t think it’s a feminist argument so much as a libertarian one”

        Sure.

        I wasn’t really suggesting anything other than …

        …well, i was going to say “ball-busting”

        …but then i realized that would be proposing a gendered concept that implies power-relations and so i doublechecked my privilege…

        On whether we need to start “gratuitously mixing ists and isms” –

        these things: “things like making birth control available over-the-counter, state coercion of pregnant women, surrogacy law, and the emerging legal issues surrounding things like IVF and artificial wombs), state overreach into parenting, the over-regulation of female-heavy occupations, how decriminalizing sex work fits into overall criminal-justice reform efforts,”

        …as you noted = i don’t see how they necessarily require “feminist” instead of “libertarian” arguments.

        Maybe I was traumatized by being forced to read lots of Feminist critical theory in college. God it was so, so, so painful. You have no idea what the name “Helene Cixous” does to me. Its like “Cleaning Woman” from Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid

        1. You have no idea what the name “Helene Cixous” does to me.

          Feminists are the worst writers on Earth. Sometimes modern feminism gets compared to Marxism (which makes sense given that all modern identity politics have their roots in Marxism), but what people don’t mention is that feminists actually write like the Marxists did.

          Marxists tended to write as if they were translating an article from Russian into English using a dictionary compiled by a lunatic. Well, compare that to this jewel of feminist writing:

          The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

          – Judith Butler

          1. Judith Butler actually might be a space alien who doesn’t fully understand English but no one’s noticed because she’s only a slightly worse writer than the average feminist:

            We act as if that being of a man or that being of a woman is actually an internal reality or something that is simply true about us, a fact about us, but actually it’s a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start.

            The point is not to stay marginal, but to participate in whatever network of marginal zones is spawned from other disciplinary centers and which, together, constitute a multiple displacement of those authorities.

            When Butler manages to be comprehensible, she also shows herself to be completely evil:

            Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements.

            “Certain dimensions”

            1. Think she misses them not having the ovens.

          2. NO TRIGGER WARNING?!

            1. The only thing worse than actual post-structuralist feminist theory, are people who write about post-structural feminist theory

              because there lie discordant multiplicities

              Hic sunt serpentes tante magnitudinis, ut unum bovem comedant integrum

            2. You want a trigger warning? Ok, here you go:

              Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

              -jcr

            3. Trigger Warnings. Ha ha ha!!!

          3. that should not be one sentence.

        2. I stick to the old standards when it comes to the feminist movement….like Willa Cather….’modern’ shit is just that….shiat….

      4. “Her point is that you should be allowed to engage in whatever gender roles you want:”

        What does gynocentrism add to the equation that we should want?

    2. Does this call for a boycott of Valentine’s Day?

      I’M IN!!!

      1. Also = Foot Massages are *real labor*, and are probably unfairly tax-advantaged

        1. Instead of buying your prog feminist girlfriend a V-day gift, just donate some money to Liz Warren’s campaign on her behalf. She’ll love it!

  2. There is no reason why feminism can’t be used for libertarians ends; the problem is that it’s been used by progressives for, I dare say, Marxist ends for so long, that’s it’s become completely associated with identity politics and class struggle.

    There is no reason why libertarians should leave the feminist part of the battlefield completely undefended, but, wow, if there’s a part of the battlefield more thoroughly under the statists’ control, I don’t know what it is.

    Good luck.

    1. I came home from work today and my wife was watching miss represented. Some feminists documentary. I watched maybe 10 minutes and they attacked capitalism, freedom of association, and men for not watching TV which somehow makes the TV be more sexist so men will watch. If this is today’s feminist they have nothing in common with libertarians as far as I can tell.

      1. Of course not, but none of that means there aren’t any libertarian feminists.

        There are some.

        Elizabeth Nolan Brown is one example. Kerry Howley was another.

        We can say the same thing about all sorts of other movements–who are hostile to capitalism.

        There is also a short list of libertarian feminists.

        They exist. Here’s a list to start with:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ism#People

        And, like I said, I think you can throw Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Kerry Howley on that list, too.

        Here’s a blogging heads video of Kerry Howley and Meagan McArdle talking about why feminism shouldn’t just be a movement from the left.

        http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1696

        1. . . . none of that means there aren’t any libertarian feminists.

          The thing is – if ‘feminism’ is about equality, self-determination, personal freedom, all that stuff, isn’t ‘libertarian feminist’ redundant?

          If ‘feminism’ is, like mainstream feminism is, about *leftist* female dominance and the destruction freedom of interation, then ‘libertarian feminism’ is as much an oxymoron as ‘libertarian socialism’.

          1. The point should be that libertarianism (and free market/free enterprise capitalism) are the solution to all sorts of problems that women face, too.

            So, isn’t libertarian “capitalist” redundant, too?

            Some libertarians care about some things more than other things, and when they talk to non-libertarians about the things they care about, libertarians need a framework within which to communicate with such people.

            When I talk to non-libertarian environmentalists about environmental policy, it helps if they understand that I’m an environmentalist, too. I share their concerns–I just happen to think that libertarian capitalism offers the solutions we need to protect the environment.

            Libertarian feminists, too, aren’t necessarily preaching to the choir. I don’t think the purpose of libertarian feminism is to convert libertarians to the feminist cause.

            I think the purpose of libertarian feminism is to show feminists that there’s a better way to obtain the objectives they want–a hell of a lot better than government coercion. …and that way is libertarian.

            I remember Doherty writing something to the effect, once, that the purpose of libertarianism has always been to create more libertarians, and this is right up that alley.

            There is a lot to lose and nothing to gain by convincing feminists (or environmentalists, et. al.) that libertarianism has nothing to offer their cause.

            1. This is why diversity (of morality) is so paramount in the battle for liberty. Diversify is what evil bodies do when they infiltrate. If they remain segregated within the host they can be ejected at any point when the host comes to its senses. Diversity spreads Detroit out across 50 states so you can’t pinpoint which ideas are fucking up society. Detroit is a cautionary tale for progressives: its what happens when you let your scum ideology fester, you get a PR nightmare.

              And so a virus will destroy a single host cell, and explode it, and each new virus body exploding out will seek out new cells to merge with and pollute: infiltrate, diffuse, rinse, repeat. If you are evil that’s all you have to do to win. It’s the only way you can win.

              I’m not against wise branding, I’m against infiltration by evil ideas. Inasmuch as feminist libertarian is redundant its fine. Inasmuch as they diverge its evil.

              1. I guess it’s always ‘shroom season in Oregon?

            2. …the purpose of libertarianism has always been to create more libertarians…

              That’s funny. I always thought the purpose of libertarianism was to ensure that people weren’t coerced.

            3. @Ken yes! all of this. For instance, if I’m arguing about why we shouldn’t have anti-discrimination statutes for pregnant women, I could just sort of say that straight-up around other libertarians. But to say that in outside circles, many people assume you’re coming at it from a place of indifference or even hostility to women or mothers. The libertarian feminist label is a good way to signal to non-libertarians that in pushing non-statist solutions, I’m also doing so out of what I think will be best for women.

          2. The thing is – if ‘feminism’ is about equality, self-determination, personal freedom, all that stuff, isn’t ‘libertarian feminist’ redundant?

            I see very little reason to assume that feminism is at all about personal freedom, or even self-determination for that matter. As far as I’ve been able to glean, feminism is about equality. Period. If personal freedom or self-determination are useful to that end, feminists will embrace them. To the extent they’re not, feminists will denounce them.

            The only reason libertarians and feminists have been able to work together is that, historically, women suffered from a lack of personal freedom or self-determination.

        2. ‘Libertarian feminists’ are heretics of their own movement. I grant that there are sensible, truly egalitarian feminists, but they are good in spite of identifying as feminists, not because of it.

          1. If libertarian feminists are heretics of their own movement becasue they eschew government coercion, then we should give them all the support we can.

            1. Or maybe the rest of the feminists realize something the libertarian feminists are too innocent to realize.

          2. It’s akin to libertarian populism. It’s a way to market libertarianism as a means to feminist or populist ends. So yeah, it’s redundant, but it’s playing a bit of word association to help bring libertarianism to the mainstream. So I say go for it.

            1. You may be right, but my understanding of good and evil has some pretty predictable rules.

              If an evil body becomes part of a good body and diffuses then the good body is then evil. If an evil body and a good body directly compete on even grounds, good wins every time.

              You flip the light switch and darkness disappears, good conquers evil no contest. But if you let them blur and seep you get different results. Feminism infiltrates anything, and it corrupts it.

              Branding libertarianism as having a feminist wing is interesting, but feminism is evil. There is no middle ground on that subject. Libertarians who are also feminists are good in spite of their feminism because it hasn’t diffused thru their entire ideology yet.

              It’s fundamentally a question of diffusion vs open conflict. If ENB’s feminism is allowed to diffuse into her libertarian ideology it will ruin it. If she staunches the flow and compares them openly she will find their conflict and prefer the superior parts of each code (spoiler: feminism has no superior parts to libertarianism).

              They both agree murder is wrong but they are incompatible on relevant issues. But humans are works-in-progress. Will ENB synthesize an evil compromise, or resolve what is morally correct?

              1. This is why diversity (of morality) is so paramount in the battle for liberty. Diversify is what evil bodies do when they infiltrate. If they remain segregated within the host they can be ejected at any point when the host comes to its senses. Diversity spreads Detroit out across 50 states so you can’t pinpoint which ideas are fucking up society. Detroit is a cautionary tale for progressives: its what happens when you let your scum ideology fester, you get a PR nightmare.

                And so a virus will destroy a single host cell, and explode it, and each new virus body exploding out will seek out new cells to merge with and pollute: infiltrate, diffuse, rinse, repeat. If you are evil that’s all you have to do to win. It’s the only way you can win.

                I’m not against wise branding, I’m against infiltration by evil ideas. Inasmuch as feminist libertarian is redundant its fine. Inasmuch as they diverge its evil.

        3. It’s amusing that you think contemporary feminism has anything to do with liberalism or the left. I assume you believe this because you don’t like the left, but if you give it a little thought it’s no different from believing that conservatism, really, is whatever W. and Cheney decided it was for the sake of getting elected.

    2. There is no reason why feminism can’t be used for libertarians ends

      Sexism, just as racism, comes with costs as well as benefits, and in particular for libertarians.

      Identity politics is largely antithetical to the reciprocity of rights and responsibilities entailed by a general non aggression principle.

      But it works for the Progressive Theocracy, because they’re intent on centralizing power, which is always served by warfare by other means of identity politics. Divide and conquer.

      1. Exactly !

      2. It further amuses me that you think the right doesn’t pursue identity politics as viciously and stridently as the left.

        Think. When you look at politics the same way you look at team sports, we all lose.

      3. feminism is the advancement of women at the expense of men. It uses the coercive power of government to create gender selective laws, codes and quotas.

        the use of the coercive power of government to enhance one group over that of another is inherently anti-libertarian which strives to eliminate excessive government intrusion into the lives of the individual.

        Progressives (socialist/communists) constantly attempt to co-opt Libertarianism for their own socio-political agenda

      4. There is no reason why collectivism can’t be used for individualist ends

        See the problem?

    3. There is no reason why feminism can’t be used for libertarians ends…

      The problem is that there kind of is. Feminism is fundamentally a collectivist ideology. Its central point of discussion is the relative status of one collective compared to another. Trying to build a foundation for a consistent system of individual rights and liberties on a collectivist basis is a fool’s errand.

      Libertarians, individualists and feminists had common ground for a good many years. There was good reason for that. Women had artificial constraints and judgments placed on them because of a competing collectivism. But, beyond that point, the two ideologies must diverge.

  3. (Libertarian feminism) doesn’t require abandoning “traditional” gender roles or presumptions within personal relationships, and certainly not forbidding them. No one should be forced to have an egalitarian marriage, to have sex in any particular way, etc., so long as it is voluntary. Feminism is concerned with enforcing societal norms of equality, not mandating it between adult individuals who consent to cede it; about expanding the realm of choice, not favoring any particular choices.

    How does this differ in any way from libertarianism generally? I respect ‘freedom feminists’ who oppose the ridiculous nonsense going on with left-wing feminism (and in particular I respect Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young and ENB for arguing against this stuff knowing full well they’ll be called gender traitors), but it looks to me like you’re just making libertarian arguments and calling them feminist arguments because you’re a woman.

    If all feminism means is letting people do what they want regardless of gender, then everyone who values individual freedom is a feminist. Personally, if a woman wants to be a housewife who is subservient to her husband, I think that’s her right, and I think it’s her right to go to business school and do her best to become CEO of a fortune 500 company.

    Is that really ‘feminist’ since I think they have that right due to basic human rights rather than because they’re women?

    1. Well put.

    2. “but it looks to me like you’re just making libertarian arguments and calling them feminist arguments because you’re a woman.”

      I’ve noticed a lot of feminism is like this.
      There are probably a hundred different definitions of feminism based on whatever a given woman wants it to mean. Unfortunately, the most agreed upon definition is the most influential and agregious.

      1. Just remember when they say it’s “FINE”, it’s not really fine….

    3. I think though that there is some merit to labeling it as “libertarian feminism” to get some of the other feminists – who might not be totally lost – to pay attention.

      1. GILMORE made a very good comment yesterday about the relevance of #GamerGate in that it is causing a number of people who reflexively ally with the left culturally to rethink, or even think for once, about how they feel about that. It is important, I believe, for those who start making that journey to be able to find a home where they can continue it without the pressure of their former allies weighing them down. If “Libertarian Feminism” is what it takes for women (and men, and transmen, and whateves) to start rethinking their support for the insane asylum of modern feminism I’ll count it as useful.

        1. If “Libertarian Feminism” is what it takes for women (and men, and transmen, and whateves)

          I think there were a few groups you didn’t include who now feel othered.

          This is why we can’t have nice things…

      2. This is probably the best defense of the label I’ve seen. Unfortunately, many women have a strong sentimental attachment to the label of ‘feminism’ so we need to be realists and live with that.

        But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a flaw, if a fairly minor one, that so many people care so much about an ideological identity. For once more people should take after me. I don’t even consider myself a libertarian. I don’t consider myself anything, just let the chips fall where they may.

    4. If all feminism means is letting people do what they want regardless of gender, then everyone who values individual freedom is a feminist.

      What evidence do you have that this is what feminism means? The feminist movement’s own statements and asserted priorities belie this claim.

  4. To any significant extent that feminism differs from libertarianism it is sexistm.

    1. sexism.

      (Don’t ask me what sexistm is, I don’t know either.)

    2. Agreed. A concise way of putting it.

  5. Libertarian feminism is worse than an American Sniper eating at Chipotle.

    But seriously, libertarian feminism is probably not going to catch on. Most women who are against government intervention economically are conservatives, so they’re not going to be pro-choice. Take away the pro-choice factor from feminism and you’re left with “I think my boss is giving me less money cuz I have boobs!” That’s only strong enough a foundation for a political philosophy if you’re insane enough to be a progressive. I really think Elizabeth considers herself a feminist because she’s pro-choice. The rest of it she sort of reconciles on her own.

    1. Libertarian feminism is worse than an American Sniper eating at Chipotle.

      *slow, scattered clapping that gradually rises to thunderous applause*

    2. I give my employees with big boobs more money and other benefits…..am I a femnista?

  6. My January column at Libertarianism.org is one part personal feminist libertarain manifesto-

    Groooooooooooooan.

    The Life of Julia may not have caught on, but I don’t see anyone who labels herself a libertarian interacting positively with anyone who labels herself a feminist. (I mean, you know how well women get along even without adding politics.)

    1. I think most every woman considers herself a feminist on some level. They all define it very differently, but they identify with some part of it. So if ENB wants to use “feminism” to sell libertarian ideals to the non-Marxist women, I’m all for it.

  7. “Feminism is concerned with enforcing societal norms of equality, not mandating it between adult individuals who consent to cede it; about expanding the realm of choice, not favoring any particular choices.”

    We had a thread about this sort of thing yesterday–in the thread about political correctness being about manners and the attempt to change social norms.

    I pointed out then that social norms have been changed dramatically (for the better) without the intervention of government; for instance, I suspect racism and homophobia would have become socially unacceptable in polite society regardless of whether we had passed the Civil Rights Act or had passed whatever amendment protecting gay marriage. Don’t need the government to effect positive change.

    But I think you’re going too far if you say you’re not favoring any particular choices. If you’re trying to change social norms, you’re favoring some new social norm over an existing one.

    If you don’t like traditional gender roles, why not admit that?

    Regardless, if you admit you want to change gender roles to something better, you’re certainly favoring something else over the social norms we’ve had in the past. Why not admit that?

    1. “I pointed out then that social norms have been changed dramatically (for the better) without the intervention of government; for instance, I suspect racism and homophobia would have become socially unacceptable in polite society regardless of whether we had passed the Civil Rights Act or had passed whatever amendment protecting gay marriage. Don’t need the government to effect positive change.”

      Some guys wrote a book called “The Independents” in which they made a similar statement; you could say that the government is a trailing indicator of change.

      1. Coincidentally my 12-year-old son and I watched the old Stallone/Wesley Snipes 90’s action film Demolition Man on tv last night. I had forgotten about it, and was amazed at how the underlying story was very libertarian and anti-statist. Los Angeles 2032 is a ‘perfect society’ where everyone is polite, there’s no such thing as unhappiness or violence (or even sexual contact, you get a license and go to a lab to get a baby.) Anyone swearing gets an automatic fine.

        Denis Leary plays the biggest threat to the State, a guy who lives with a bunch of rebels in the sewer, because there they can say, do, eat or smoke whatever they want — and they’d even prefer living in the sewers as long as they can maintain their individual liberty.

        It’s no intellectual piece, far from it, and is more a typical goofy Stallone action flick with plenty of fighting, gunfire and explosions — but it was interesting to see it had such a libertarian, anti-government core message.

        1. I saw the beginning trucker movie from the ’70s “Convoy” a while back.

          When I saw it on TV, they always cut out the part about why the cop is after the trucker.

          …it’s because his local police union joined the teamsters, and so the cops, who are now part of the teamsters union, are hassling independent (non-union) truckers to try to keep them off the road and drive away the teamsters’ competition.

          The central message of that flick was “fucking rent-seekers”.

  8. ENB, I notice you say libertarian feminism should include reproductive “freedom,” including abortion, and soon after that you cite Julie Borowski – let’s see what *she* thinks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNH-0HKZu_U

    H&R guys – wouldn’t you rather hear it from Julie Borowski than from me?

    1. H&R guys – wouldn’t you rather hear it from Julie Borowski than from me?

      No. I’ve discussed this before; she has ‘crazy eyes’ that creep me the fuck out!

      1. So, is this the place to discuss abortion? I really need to know what everyone on this blog things!

        1. thinks. I need coffee. I will see myself out. Discuss abortion among yourselves.

          1. It’s like a war with many fronts.

      2. Pfft. Those are nothing. I’ll worry when she starts to look like this.

        1. I actually felt an adrenalin rush viewing that. A frisson of terror more normally associated with hearing the plaintive wailing of the bane sidhe.

        2. My mom has eyes like that when she has a photograph taken. It’s just extreme extroversion combined with ADHD. Maybe a little crazy, but functionally so.

        3. This is not totally hot at all.

          1. “I can’t FAP to that!”

      3. ” she has ‘crazy eyes’ that creep me the fuck out!”

        yeah.

        I think its totally hot. they’re my favorite kind.

      4. No. I’ve discussed this before; she has ‘crazy eyes’ that creep me the fuck out!

        I actually find her very attractive and would probably be seeking her out if I was much younger and single.

        The eyes I haven’t been bothered by, but the one flaw I’ve noticed is it always seems like the cleft in her chin goes diagonal to one side. I think I could learn to live with it, as she gives me a backrub and tells me about her day battling statists.

        1. She’s 5/10, and a little bit Aspie.

          1. I think as libertarians we must define a single standard of beauty and all must collectively agree to that.

      5. Borowski also isn’t exactly what you’d call ‘articulate’ outside of youtube personalities. Awhile back she had an interview with an Objectivist news site (I think, might have been the Objective Standard, can’t remember) and the interviewer bloody crushed her by asking a bunch of moral and philosophical questions she really didn’t understand or expect.

        1. And she uses that YouT00ber fast-cut technique which I’ve come to HATE.

    2. Not really.

    3. I’d prefer her postings to her videos.

  9. I’m inclined to think that the Progs will treat a libertarian feminist in about the same way they treat conservative/libertarian blacks…you off the plantation boy, time to put you down, etc.

  10. Libertarian feminists bring overlooked or under-emphasized issues into the liberty movement, such as reproductive freedom (not just abortion but things like making birth control available over-the-counter

    Rank nonsense. The fact that it is a well-known meme on this site that abortion is one of the most contentious subjects of discussion on these fora, often leading 1,000 plus comment flame wars is alone evidence that disproves the claim that “reproductive freedom” is “overlooked or under-emphasized”. Similarly, Reason published many an article concerning sex work well before ENB was assigned that beat. What I suspect is meant by the phrase “overlooked or under-emphasized” is “not enough libertarians agree with me”. And that is fine; it is totally appropriate for ENB to advocate for her stance through op-eds published on H y R. However, to claim that discussion of reproductive/sexual freedom and the like are somehow new to the liberty movement (with an added ‘shame on us’) stretches credulity.

    1. I don’t think it’s as much that not enough agree with her, but that she feels that not enough people treat the issues she is passionate about with the degree of attention that she feels they deserve. Not unique to her at all, and not something I can get upset over, given I have issues I feel the same way about.

      1. but that she feels that not enough people treat the issues she is passionate about with the degree of attention that she feels they deserve.

        Then again, anyone short of a monomaniac on the topic, would admit that reproductive/sexual freedom is something that is been talked to death on various libertarian fora. I don’t see how you could pay more attention to it.

        1. Sure, which is why I think that it is basically a “my shit is IMPORTANT” statement, hardly an unusual stance for culture warriors.

    2. Exactly. While I’ve tried to stop inserting the subject into every thread (you’re welcome), when one of the Reason staff puts on their pom-poms and starts saying how awesome abortion is and how prolifers are Handmaid’s Tale-style villains, I don’t like that to go unrebutted.

      The multiple-post threads at least indicate to the choicers at Reason that their views are contested, and not to be taken for granted.

      1. Plus, if the staffers make a multi-pronged defense of abortion, I would like to address each prong. So if they say “ha ha, those fanatics with their 5-month bans,” I address that, if they say “appointing an attorney for the fetus to argue for its right to life, just like we appoint attorneys for Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy – how oppressive!” then I respond to that.

        For each head of the hydra which pops up, I would like to cut it off and cauterize the stump:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..f_Heracles

        1. I mean, we wouldn’t the Reason staff to be a bunch of Pauline Kaels who don’t know any prolifers, except as a vague, sinister background noise.

          One of the phrases you’re least likely to hear at a *Reason* cocktail party (TM) is “when I was picketing the abortion clinic the other day…”

        2. What I hope you and ENB understand is that the arguments don’t matter. Nobody is changing anybody’s mind. Either you believe it’s murder, or you don’t. There’s really no point in talking about it.

          1. I disagree with the premise, but in any case prolifers need a presence in the public square to prevent it becoming a choicer echo chamber. And seeing so many prolife posts at h & R is good for my morale; it shows I’m not alone – maybe it boosts other prolifers’ morale as well.

            1. I mean prolife posts by other people, not by me.

      2. I’m pro abortion rights.

        I don’t consider pro lifers as anti freedom in general or in ideology, just anti freedom *in fact*, for the particular case of abortion.

        I think they’re wrong, but most pro abortion people are very wrong as well. The arguments generally put forth are a swamp of nonsense on both sides, with the usual pro abortion arguments entirely failing to engage the arguments of pro lifers.

        While we disagree on abortion, I agree with you that it’s just incorrect to consider the pro abortion side as the official libertarian side.

        Though the site has gone very Proggy of late, and I’d say the same thing about their rah rah over open borders or Fortress America pacifism.

    3. Remember, feminist don’t debate things. They assume they already one the debate and tell you you’re basically Hitler if you didn’t get the memo.

      1. Haha…so true..

  11. Her point is that you should be allowed to engage in whatever gender roles you want and if those gender roles are traditional or freaky deeky, you shouldn’t be looked down on for doing it.

    I don’t think it is my – or anyone else’s – place to determine what is acceptable to other people. Someone in that sentence is doing the looking down, and that person has the freedom to think whatever he or she thinks.

    1. Indeed, and ultimately the people ‘looking down’ on your behaviour have just as much a right to do so as you have to engage in it, provided that they aren’t trying to control you as well.

      For example, I’m not exactly what you’d call pro-incest. But should governments been involved in punishing people for that voluntary activity? Not really.

      It’s perfectly possible to disprove of something while at the same time recognizing that you shouldn’t attempt to control other people’s behaviours.

      1. I’m not exactly what you’d call pro-incest. But should governments been involved in punishing people for that voluntary activity?

        I’m not sure that incest can ever be described as voluntary, considering the dynamics involved in family relationships. Fuck, if we feel obligated to attend a family reunion or some cousin’s wedding when we really don’t want to go…

        1. If that’s the case Oldboy could have been a lot easier.

          Bad Guy: Hey Daesu, go fuck your daughter.
          Daesu: Ewwwwwww…
          Bad Guy: But she wants you to, and if you don’t I’m going to have this puppet of your dead wife nag you over it for two hours.

          1. Never underestimate the power of spousal nagging.

      2. it’s perfectly possible to disprove of something while at the same time recognizing that you shouldn’t attempt to control other people’s behaviours.

        “Looking down” can entail social signaling. Thus, an attempt to control behavior through ostracizing the offending member. The words I am typing are an attempt to control others’ behavior.

        1. “Looking down” can entail social signaling. Thus, an attempt to control behavior through ostracizing the offending member.

          That’s excluding people based on their perception of their views or ideals. Ultimately the person being ostracized makes a value judgement of whether they want to engage with that person or continue the behaviour they disprove of. That’s not control, that’s called choice.

          There’s a massive difference between “I disagree with your views and ideals and don’t want to associate with you” and “I disagree with your views and ideals and will actively have people violently force you to accept my conclusions”.

          1. That’s excluding people based on their perception of their views or ideals. Ultimately the person being ostracized makes a value judgement of whether they want to engage with that person or continue the behaviour they disprove of. That’s not control, that’s called choice.

            One also has a “choice” when threatened with physical violence. Again, this response is an attempt to “control” you and any others that may read it.

            1. One also has a “choice” when threatened with physical violence. Again, this response is an attempt to “control” you and any others that may read it.

              The difference is that an aggressive violent threat is used to offer a choice of conforming or taking away something that belongs to you (your life and health). Where as ostracizing is presented as a choice between conforming or not being given something, namely the benefits of associating with others, which is not something you are owed by default.

    2. and that person has the freedom to think whatever he or she thinks.

      Including the looking-down-upon?

    3. so in her logic ” a person should be able to dress like a complete clown and not be judged for looking like a clown nor should any other assumptions be made about the person’s mental or emotional state” All, of which is completely stupid. Everything that a person says, does or wears is a reflection of their inner personality – the more flamboyant you are the more attention (negative, positive or both) you are going to attract. Also, the farther you wander from the mainstream of society, the more likely you are to attract negative attention. People are always more likely to show positive emotions about people that are more like themselves and more likely to be wary of people that are drastically different from themselves.
      This is simple human nature and is moronic to try to contradict.

      In law we may have to accept difference but, in our own consciousness and morality we make our own choices. Being able to chose to like or not like someone based upon our own preferences is a central tenet of libertarianism so her thesis is illogical and counter to Libertarianism.

      Another collectivist trying to co-opt libertarianism to force people to accept deviant sexuality even if they do not wish to.

  12. many of the earliest advocates for gender equality and women’s autonomy did so from an individualist perspective.

    That’s nice. Have you picked up a copy of Rolling Stone, lately?

  13. But seriously, libertarian feminism is probably not going to catch on.

    Both of those terms have been so completely misrepresented shit upon by various and sundry panjandrums (panjandra?) of Social Commentary as to be worse than useless. One might as well describe oneself as a proponent of technocratic mysticism.

    1. ” technocratic mysticism.”

      Fascinated by your theories I am, and your newsletter – subscribe to it, I must.

      1. May St. Vidicon of Cathode preserve you from the Imp of the Perverse.

        1. The ORB!!!

  14. From the article:

    Feminism is concerned with enforcing societal norms of equality, not mandating it between adult individuals who consent to cede it; about expanding the realm of choice, not favoring any particular choices.

    1. Shit! I hit “submit” instead of “preview”. I’ll continue here.

      Doesn’t this seem contradictory? I mean, isn’t “enforcing societal norms of equality” the opposite of “expanding the realm of choice.”

      1. Yeah I’m not sure how you enforce it. Maybe she just meant “encourage”

        1. Maybe she doesn’t care much for logical consistency? She is a feminist after all.

        2. “enforce being the key word there. Libertarians are very wary of that word and for good reason. It is generally a tool of the left to “enforce societal norms that are not nor have ever been “societal norms”. This is the kind of “consciousness building” they attempt in the schools – trying to brainwash kids into thinking that eco/feminist/socialism is the normal state of society and anything else is deviant and wrong.
          They also teach that the only way to return to the utopia that they claim is to “enforce” their agenda on an unwilling libertarian and conservative population.

    1. That video is a CIA fraud. Everyone knows the Illuminati kidnapped John Kennedy and that the person in the car was his long lost twin brother “Carl” who was murdered to cover up the role that Aliens had in proving Coca Cola with the secret recipe for free energy.

      1. I see…

        *writes down Gilmore’s name in small notebook*

  15. feminism is a progressive (read – socialist) agenda. It is not a Libertarian agenda. Feminists seek to promote their twisted ideology of female sex superiority and promotion at the expense of men. The truth in this is that when people start petty group identity tribalism it fragments society pitting one groups interests against others. The only people who profit from this are the agitators (like Al Sharpton) who do so by telling people how oppressed they are.

    Libertarianism is a ideology that seeks the best outcome for all people not just one sex race or religion. It is also one that recognizes that people have an undeniable right to believe anything they choose regardless of whether anyone else likes this. Also any person may discriminate in anyway they choose in their private or business life. The only entity that absolutely cannot discriminate is the Government because it represents all people in the Country.

    Because feminism actively promotes the interests of women over that of men it cannot be libertarian any more than the KKK, the NAACP, CAIR or any other identity politics groups.

    1. Libertarianism is a ideology that seeks the best outcome for all people

      The fuck it is.

      1. I actually agree with pretty much everything he said.

      2. I agree with Trolls = Libertarianism doesn’t “seek the best outcome for all people”.

        But it *delivers it* as a side-effect of individual liberty and free exchange.

      3. actually it is.

  16. “Libertarian feminism provides a basis to oppose both sexism and statism.”

    Why do you need feminism to be against sexism? It doesn’t seem to bring anything to the fight for equality but baggage.

    It also seems to me that gender equality is a fight that was won decades ago in the Western developed countries. Sure there are aspects of sexism in daily life, but there are aspects of every form of bigotry in daily life. You confront them individually as they happen. You don’t need a group with a ‘Team Feminist’ badge to deal with that kind of issue.

    1. I need feminism to oppose sexism and statism like I need a toaster oven to keep me cool on summer nights.

      1. I need feminism to oppose sexism and statism like I need a toaster oven to keep me cool on summer nights.

        I think it was Gloria Steinem who first said that, right?

  17. I’m all for treating men and women equally — but the women’s movement has already taken us well past that point, making biased “gains” that need to be reversed yesterday. And any serious libertarian attempt to address gender equity needs to have that at the top of its agenda. That is why I, and I think most libertarians, identify as “masculist” or at least not feminist.

    Here’s my short list of feminist “gains” that need to be undone now:

    1. The Violence Against Women Act has to go. Its precautionary provisions (for instance, restraining orders that kick a man out of his own home when he hasn’t even done or threatened violence, merely because she says “I’m afraid of him”) simply aren’t due process. Let the woman accuse him of an actual assault (and be liable for the same jail sentence she’s threatening him with if it’s proven she’s lying) before she gets to restrain him at all. And even then, if she did any of the same behaviors that would be valid “provocation” in a fight between two guys, it should get him off the hook the same as it would then.

    (continued)

  18. (continued)

    2. The “sexual harassment in the workplace” law, and its extensions into other venues, need to be either completely abolished, or at least narrowed to cover only actual harassment (defined as repeated approaches to the same person whom the harasser knows doesn’t want to hear it). The whole “hostile environment” concept (which translates as forbidding pinups or a “locker room atmosphere”) is unacceptable cultural warfare against men.

    3. The law needs to recognize that having sex isn’t consent to having a child. The rule needs to go back to, “If you want child support, get his signature on a marriage license before getting pregnant.” Women who have children out of wedlock for the purpose of getting a lifetime meal ticket are a huge and growing problem, and their kids have no hope of escaping the welfare trap as things stand today. Their kids should be taken away and put in foster care, and the women should go to jail for fraud and child neglect, not be rewarded with welfare payments.

    4. The pro-woman bias of divorce courts should be addressed, probably with quotas. And certainly women who stayed married less than 5 years and/or did not bear him any children should not gain financially in a divorce, they should leave with what they arrived with.

    If any woman libertarian can cite a single unfair advantage men still have that has the urgency of these four, I’d love to hear it. But lacking any, I don’t really see how a libertarian can be “feminist.”

    1. “The rule needs to go back to, “If you want child support, get his signature on a marriage license before getting pregnant.””

      As long as there’s the proviso, “if you go on public assistance, the father needs to pay back the value of that assistance into the public treasury.”

      1. Nope, her choice her responsibility. As long as abortion is legal it is immoral to hold the man responsible for a child that has been brought in to the world solely by the choice of the woman.

  19. My last pay check was $ 9500 working 10 hours a week online. My Friend’s has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 21 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out
    OPEN THIS LINK IN YOUR BROWSER,,,,
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  20. Meanwhile, down at the outrage factory:

    Newsweek’s current cover story on sexism in Silicon Valley is getting negative attention for dressing up what it defiles: unequal footing for women in technology.

    The cover was ridiculed as “desperate/inappropriate/offensive” and described by a national TV host as “despicable.” But many defended its intent, including the cover story’s author, Nina Burleigh.

    “The cover illustrates disgusting behavior that has been described in literally hundreds of easily available tweets, blogs and articles online as well as in the many interviews I conducted with women,” she told PBS NewsHour.

    In Burleigh’s article, she fleshes out the stereotypes behind Silicon Valley’s legends, who she describes as being unimpressive physically but capable of walking into venture capital firms and leaving with a million dollars. Presented in parallel are the many women who have reached for the same support who were not rewarded because, as Burleigh suggested, they are lacking “the sine qua non of the fabled Silicon Valley startup”: penises.

    Yeah. I can’t wait to read that dispatch from the individualist freedom wars.

    1. Ladies and gentlemen, the most ridiculous, in context, interview question ever:

      After what happened to Charlie Hebdo, there has been a lot of scrutiny of cartoons and images in the media. Do we live in an era of heightened awareness about images? Or have racism and sexism always been topics that are too touchy?

      Marcotte akbar! Marcotte akbar! *shrill ululations accompanied by the firing of AK-47s in the air*

    2. FTA:

      “Where were all these offended people when women like Heidi Roizen published accounts of having a venture capitalist stick her hand in his pants under a table while a deal was being discussed?” asked Burleigh.

      This is a standard business practice. How else are venture capitalists going to be sure that they are giving money to the right “people”?

      In Burleigh’s article, she fleshes out the stereotypes behind Silicon Valley’s legends, who she describes as being unimpressive physically but capable of walking into venture capital firms and leaving with a million dollars. Presented in parallel are the many women who have reached for the same support who were not rewarded because, as Burleigh suggested, they are lacking “the sine qua non of the fabled Silicon Valley startup”: penises.

      1. “Where were all these offended people when women like Heidi Roizen published accounts of having a venture capitalist stick her hand in his pants under a table while a deal was being discussed?” asked Burleigh.

        Did she immediately call the cops and have him prosecuted for sexual assault?

        Or did she keep trying to get money out of him?

        I thought so.

      2. I’ve worked on several startups, and my possession of a penis has never been a factor. To this day, no employer or colleague of mine has ever asked to see it.

        -jcr

    3. Female-Lead Start-Ups Receive a Tiny Fraction of Venture Capital Money

      7%, specifically.

      In all these “disparity of outcomes” claims, they rarely seem to actually cite the normalized ‘attempt rate’. The number seems low only if you assume “half of actual business proposals were by women-run organizations”. what if it was only 5%?

      As an example = there was an investment bank where the equity-research floor was about 20-25% female.

      when a person applied for a job there, they were told “we’d love to hire you right away, but we actually have to wait 6 months to see if any women will apply first”

      Because women only represented about 5-10% of actual applicants; as a policy, the groups all had to interview 2-3 women as a *requirement* before they accepted any new male hires.

      and people will *still* similarly claim “Wall Street Hates Women” because there are only 1-in-4 women doing X job.

      I’m not saying that women “shouldn’t” be greater represented in certain fields at all. In fact, the place i’m talking about was often considered “the best workplace” on the Street for their longstanding policy of maintaining ‘workplace diversity’.

      its just when the policies get more and more pressure from outside groups (*particularly ‘corporate social responsibility’ witch-hunts) that the claims of ‘unfairness’ start to border on the ludicrous.

      1. I think the Ouya is proof that women can get venture capital.

        That raised like 8 million on Kickstarter. And several million from venture capitalists, and just 10 million from Alibaba, a big Chinese company.

        It’s an Android game console run by a woman, yet somehow it got a decent amount of backing, both public and private.

  21. A so-called “libertarian moment” can only be helped along by expanded appeal among women, and among feminist-minded folks of all genders. Individual rights are at the heart of feminism. It’s time for libertarians to reclaim that.

    Yes, but where do the TERFS fit into the feminist/libertarian paradigm?

    the TERF movement is particularly effective in their campaigns against trans people and trans equality as they consistently couch their actions as political/feminist/lesbian/radical/womanist critiques of gender and are therefore welcomed in spaces that would reject the same rhetoric from right wing organizations. TERFs routinely enjoy acceptance in progressive environments such as academia and radical left-wing organizations.

    From consistently targeting trans healthcare to lobbying the US government to institute a national program of forced reparative therapy for trans people, the TERF movement, while historically seen as both ridiculous and irrelevant, has managed to inflict more suffering upon the trans community than any other anti-trans equality movement in the history of the United States.

    1. I’m not 100% sure what this means, except that it seems another example of lefty loons trying to out-crazy each other.

        1. “this is a condition we are born with, not a political choice we make”

          and that’s why all feminists are accepting of all women’s choices, regardless of their political choices. Oh wait…

          1. *political views

      1. Basically, some feminist tried to be logical consistent with their whole gender is a societal construct bit, which means that trans people can’t be real. Other progressives are pissed at them for daring to display the flaws in their logic.

  22. “Libertarian feminism”? What a strange centaur. Women lack their own agency, and if they don’t submit to the organic authority of fathers and husbands, they’ll vote for socialist politicians in their place as surrogate male authority figures and providers. And we know where that leads regarding our liberty.

    In other words, libertarianism and feminism work at cross purposes. A more stable mix would involve liberty for men and patriarchal submission for women.

    1. Wow, an actual patriarchal sexist! And we found it in the wild, outside the Muslim world!

      Tag it and release it to see if it can find others of its kind!

      1. And an atheist patriarchal sexist too. It’s like a goddamn unicorn.

          1. Maury is like WWE for housewives. You have to have a guy to play the heel who comes out while the audience boos rapturously.

            That is so obviously fake it’s unbelievable. The only difference between daytime T.V. and rasslin’ is that people admit rasslin’ isn’t real.

            1. Yeah right. Next you’re going to tell not all ‘secret videotaped’ porn is real. A lot of videos I’ll have to unmasturbate to to regain my integrity.

              1. That is fucking hilarious…

      2. It’s pretty amazing for a Catholic to joke about how rare patriarchal sexism is outside the Muslim world.

        1. And this isn’t to pick on Catholics. Lots of other denominations have philosophies that ‘men and women are different and can each serve in difference aspects, but of course the leadership positions are reserved for men.’ If that isn’t patriarchal I don’t know what would be. The SBC which recently affirmed that wives have a duty to obey their husbands is like a walking testament to patriarchy.

        2. Those are astonishing, original insights!

          Why not share these insights with Mother Teresa, St. Clare (St. Francis’ female counterpart), St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor of the Church), and Saint Barbara (patron saint of artillerymen)?

          And a Lady whom I am not fit to name, who is Queen of Heaven?

          1. That’s nice and all Eddie, but the fact remains that for the Catholic Church in the end the shots are called by a man and/or men. It’s ridiculous for you to argue otherwise by pointing to women that are allowed to lead Catholic organizations for women which are, ultimately, under men by rule.

            1. You spoke of “patriarchal sexism.” Which doesn’t quite explain how there tend to be more women than men worshipping in Catholic churches on any given day. I suppose they all suffer from false consciousness?

              1. Patriarchy is defined as when “men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” That’s certainly true of the Catholic Church, the leadership is ultimately limited to men.

                Why do a lot of women put up with that? I don’t know. People put up with all kinds of things that are hard to explain.

                1. False consciousness!

                  Because the attitudes of *actual women* matter less than the prescriptions of some man as to what women *ought* to be.

                  Isn’t there a word for men prescribing roles to women based on how women *ought* to be?

                  Of course, the Church would never honor a female ruler, like St. Pulcheria, as a saint.

                  http://www.bartleby.com/210/9/102.html

                  1. Wait, could it be? Yes…the *Empress* St. Pulcheria.

                2. It’s their choice….who cares?

          2. Oh, and I hadn’t known this – St. Catherine of Siena is “one of the six patron saints of Europe, together with Benedict of Nursia, Saints Cyril and Methodius, Bridget of Sweden and Edith Stein.”

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

            1. “Associations cite Order of St. Barbara inductees

              “Posted: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:59 am…

              “The Redstone Arsenal/Huntsville Chapter of the Air Defense Artillery Association and the North Alabama Redstone Arsenal Chapter of the Field Artillery Association will host their annual dinner honoring active duty, retired Air Defense and Field Artillery Soldiers, government civilians and industry counterparts, which includes the Order of St. Barbara award presentations…

              “”The honorary military society of the Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery is named for St. Barbara, the patroness of artillerymen. There are two levels of recognition, the Honorable Order and the Ancient Order.
              “The Honorable Order criteria recognizes those individuals who have demonstrated the highest standards of integrity and moral character, displayed an outstanding degree of competence and served ? with selflessness and significant contributions,” McDaniels said. “The Ancient Order is the more distinguished of the two levels of awards. For accession into the Ancient Order, the individual had to make extraordinary contributions and responsibilities were commensurate to senior level service to our nation. The Ancient Order is reserved for those whose careers have embodied the spirit, integrity, sense of sacrifice and commitment epitomized by St. Barbara.””

              http://www.theredstonerocket.c…..72787.html

            2. Yawn.

              1. Yes, I’m sure that as a combat veteran of the artillery arm you are simply bored with invocations of St. Barbara.

                1. What’s the matter, Bo, why don’t you respond?

                  Could it be you’re a…yes, I believe you are…

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5qcOdmDxPg

                  1. When the College of Cardinals is at least a third hens then the RC can claim it values wymen.

                    In my earlier days we attended a RC church known as “The Church of the Insurrection” (Resurrection) that got slapped down by the local bishop for daring to have a female give the homily.

                    Funny stuff NGKC

        3. I think it’s funny that you attack Catholics for their gender roles (which barely even exist anymore since Catholicism has modernized to a great degree) but ignore feminist claims that women must agree with them or else face opprobrium and scorn.

          Any time a woman declares that she’s not a feminist, feminists explode and declare her a gender criminal who ought to be thrown in prison for failure to adhere to goodthink.

          Your attacks on Catholicism are also hilarious given that you complain if someone says the same thing about Islam. So collectivizing Catholics is okay, but collectivizing Islam isn’t, despite the fact that modern Islam is worse than modern Catholicism in every conceivable way.

          Care to deal with this seeming contradiction?

          1. “gender roles (which barely even exist anymore ”

            Yeah, the RC has women priests, bishops, and cardinals. Oh, wait…

        4. Bo, you do realize that women who say things like that aren’t on comments sections of obscure news sites, they’re writing news for the New York Times and writing best-selling books (see Maureen Down, Hannah Rosin, Andrea Dworkin, the list goes on).

          We have a president who said “Women are smarter than men, everyone knows that.” And the audience applauded wildly. And you’re complaining about “patriarchal sexism?”

          In the west today, there’s more sexism against men than against women. Grow up and stop reading Salon, it rots your brain.

      3. Believe me, you’ll see more guys like me in the coming years as the bad parts of the Enlightenment’s social ideology collapse. Michael Shermer’s Moral Arc Reactor belongs in the comic books.

    2. Is this a parody?

      “organic authority of fathers and husbands”

      A true libertarian would know that organic authority sounds good, but isn’t viable on a macro-economic scale.

    3. I’m sure that this is totally legit and not at all a Salon reader dropping by for some trolling.

      1. Salon reader? You jest – this is much higher quality trolling than 99% of Salon readers could ever dream of crafting.

    4. Women lack their own agency, and if they don’t submit to the organic authority of fathers and husbands, they’ll vote for socialist politicians in their place as surrogate male authority figures and providers.

      There is some truth to this. How else did the whole “patriarchal domination” come about.

      1. Funnily enough, if patriarchy as feminists believe in it really did exist, it would be good evidence that women are stupid.

    5. Ha ha! I see you!

      I can see why some at LW are getting their panties in a twist.

      Women lack their own agency

      A ridiculous exaggeration of an arguably existent slight sexual dimorphism here?

  23. WTF? Did I just read this? Libertarian Feminism? That is just so fucking wrong, I don’t have words.

  24. the TERF movement is particularly effective in their campaigns against trans people and trans equality as they consistently couch their actions as political/feminist/lesbian/radical/womanist critiques of gender and are therefore welcomed in spaces that would reject the same rhetoric from right wing organizations.

    Is this some sort of space alien pidgin-English dialect?

    Because, frankly, I have no clue what it means.

    1. Because, frankly, I have no clue what it means

      To understand you must first raise your consciousness. I will help guide you. First, you must walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed. Here is a good place to embark upon your journey:
      I Am a Trans Woman and a Feminist, So Why Do Some Radical Feminists Want To Exclude Me?

  25. Elizabeth. I enjoy your articles. I’m not following your logic on this one. What u describe is just libertarianism; modifying it with “feminism” suggests that other beliefs regarding gender must be subscribed to as well. I’m a woman who is a serious libertarian but you’ll not get me to call myself a feminist libertarian EVER. I believe in equal rights for all individuals (including the pre-born who r not tissue but r distinct human beings); feminism does not fit this description no matter how much u want it to. They don’t even believe women are capable, intelligent human beings any more – I.e. Everything is sexist and women’s feelings must be protected at all times. No thank you. I’ll stick with just being a libertarian.

    1. I’m a woman who is a serious libertarian

      Welcome Jena, I think there are 4 of you now.

      you’ll not get me to call myself a feminist libertarian EVER. I believe in equal rights for all individuals

      Spot on, great comment. Feminism assumes that there is something inherently wrong with masculinity, and that it needs to be attacked and reduced to something inferior. Libertarians realize that masculinity and femininity are both great things and only compliment each other.

    2. Welcome, jena j!

    3. Very much agree. At its very best, feminism (ideology, label, and all) is an overcompensating knee jerk reaction to grievances against women, some real, many imagined. It needs to be done away with. Equality is not a one way street. Every feminist I’ve met who believes that only believed it in spite of identifying as feminist.

      If someone tells me they are an Italianist and avidly campaigns to solve the issues facing Italians, “but supports equality between the French and Italians” I see a self-contradiction.

  26. It is possible that at some point you’ll realize feminism and libertarianism are at crosspurposes, and finally make a choice. Given your commitment to Culture War bullshit, I think we’ll see you at Jezebel as you have a Road to Damascus moment about libertarianism.

    Weird ghetto women put themselves in – they have to talk endlessly about this shit instead of getting themselves involved in real, substantive debates.

  27. Because women only represented about 5-10% of actual applicants; as a policy, the groups all had to interview 2-3 women as a *requirement* before they accepted any new male hires.

    But I have it on good authority that any woman who applies for a “man’s” job will be gently steered toward the door and urged to go into teaching or nursing, where her unique feminine nurturing powers will be put to best use.

  28. Libertarianism and feminism fit together rather well. The goals of most feminists are simply that women (and men actually) should not have traditional gendered expectations pushed on them. In a libertarian world women would not be subject to coercion meant to achieve that (or other things). The problem with some current feminists is not that goal, it’s their method for reaching it: a strong, coercive government using punishments and benefits to police society to make sure these gendered expectations are not only not forced but even suggested. For a number of reasons that every libertarian can appreciate that’s just likely to not work. The better way is embracing capitalism, the logic of which could care less about gender (or nationality, etc).

    1. Libertarianism and feminism fit together rather well. The goals of most feminists are simply that women (and men actually) should not have traditional gendered expectations pushed on them.

      The dictionary definition of feminism is “the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

      If you change the definition of feminism: Feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Then, libertarianism and feminism fit together rather well.

      1. I think the social equality will just be there given political equality and free markets, or at least the option for women to live their own lives by their own ‘gendered expectations’ will be there, and that’s essentially what they’re looking at with ‘social equality.’ And given the nature of capitalism, with political economy equal opportunity between the sexes is promoted.

        1. Yeah, social and economic equality will come from political equality. This is the main tactic employed by feminist, legislating social and economic equality.

          By working together we’ve made things a lot better for women and working families. We’ve worked for and won major national policies including:

          the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act
          the Civil Rights Act of 1991
          the Family Medical Leave Act
          the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

          Become part of our movement if you:

          believe in equal pay for equal work.
          believe that workers deserve paid sick days and time to take care of their families.
          believe that women deserve good jobs with decent wages free from discrimination and harassment.
          are feisty, empowered (or want to be), fed up or all three.

          Clearly a good fit with libertarians.

      2. Bad dictionary.

        Besides that having nothing to do with the actual language usage, it’s gibberish besides.

        Equality, in what way? There are a great many *actual* differences.

  29. Common sense budget!

    The president will call for increasing spending on agency operating budgets by 7 percent next year, blowing through limits set in an earlier bipartisan deal.

    Previewing the detailed document to be released Monday, the White House said it would call for spending about $74 billion more next year than the painful automatic cuts Obama signed into law in that 2011 deal commonly known as the “sequester.” Those harsh automatic cuts were originally set in motion as a threat that would force bipartisan agreement to replace them with something more sensible, but it didn’t work.

    Obama would roughly divide the extra money he seeks between the military and domestic programs, such as college aid, medical research and child care.

    When will our long nightmare of austerity end?

    1. Obama’s actions since his party’s shellacking have been somewhat incredible. I tend not to be one of those crazy people that invoke Saul Alinsky and such, but I’m guessing there’s some core philosophy to his administration that you treat politics like a constant street fight. How else to explain the immigration EO, the recent Alaska land protection and this budget. It’s either that or he’s trolling massively.

      1. He’s a leftist ideologue. Is there anyone on the planet who doesn’t know that by now?

        See the latest NYT story about how he wants to offer more exceptions to Obamacare penalties to ward off a political firestorm. Guy doesn’t care about the tactics or results as long as it moves things leftward.

        Just push the sheeples as far as you can, and when there is resistance, just offer enough exceptions to ward off a rebellion. Then go back and start the next ploy to move communism forward.

        1. I don’t doubt his administration is run by leftist ideologues. But his actions aren’t furthering leftists causes. His dropping his EO just guaranteed that no lasting compromise on that subject will come out of Congress anytime soon.

          He could actually be making gains for the left, but he’s more interested in keeping the street fight going. I think that’s his political strategy, no, actually his political raison d’etre.

          1. He’s a Chicago pol – street-fighting is what they *do*.

            All this ‘leftist agenda’ crap is just the strategy they’ve determined will gain them the most power the fastest.

            The street fighting is because he doesn’t care whether or not these policies are implemented, well or otherwise.

            The street fighting keeps his opponents off-foot and helps him maintain his own power. And since the party can’t really help him any more (its not like he’s going to hold another political office and will make plenty of money speechifying), he can do whatever he wants, finally throwing off the shackles of party discipline.

      2. ” crazy people that invoke Saul Alinsky”

        Nothing crazy about noting strategic political theories *known* to have influence.

        1. It’s crazy because Glenn Beck has mentioned it. Who cares that a large number of leftist political activists are known to have been influenced by Alinsky and Hillary Clinton carried on a correspondence with him?

          If Glenn Beck said it, it must be crazy even if there are mounds of evidence on its behalf.

          1. Glen Beck also writes on a chalk board, does that mean all my grade school teachers were lunatics? lol.

  30. It goes much deeper than political rhetoric about ending big government or boosting the middle class.

    The budget carries thousands and thousands of decisions about concrete things the government does ? like paying park rangers, Border Patrol agents and workers who answer IRS help lines. Spending money for air traffic control, medical research and food inspection. Weeding out ineffective programs and launching new ones that, hopefully, work better.

    Won’t someone think of those poor, underpaid, starving union-dues-paying federal workers? How can we turn our backs on their suffering?

    THEY’RE HERE TO HELP YOU!

  31. “I also scoff at the charge that libertarian feminism is nothing but “identity politics.” Libertarian feminist political concerns fit comfortably within general opposition to over-regulation, over-criminalization, over-policing, and an overly coercive and powerful state.”

    I scoff at your scoffing.

    The criticism isn’t that it’s *nothing but* identity politics, but that it *is* identity politics, which is opposed to the individualism most libertarians share.

    But I suppose there is a point politically.

    Better a libertarian feminist than a statist feminist, better a libertarian masculinist than a statist masculinist, better a libertarian white supremacist than statist white supremacist, better a libertarian black supremacist than a statist black supremacist.

    But most of us think that it’s better just not to play identity politics in the first place, as it tends to play into the divide and conquer strategies of our rulers.

    1. But seeing yourself as an individual is kind of a feminist thing. I can see why it wouldn’t seem like that given the rhetoric of many current feminists. But the whole idea of being freed from ‘gendered expectations’ is that each individual should be able to live or make their own, not have society declare, and the government enforce, two cookie cutter mold set for everyone born male or female.

      1. But seeing yourself as an individual is kind of a feminist thing.

        That doesn’t make any sense at all.

        1. Sure it does, I just explained it.

          What feminism stands against the most is society, often backed by the government, telling women that THE ‘appropriate’ ‘proper’ and/or ‘right’ ways for them to act, roles and positions are this, that and that. All women are supposed to X, Y and Z, and all men are supposed to A,B and C. And they add the idea that the latter are usually actions, roles, and positions tied more to power.

          Feminism wants to smash that, so that every man and every woman can instead define the roles, positions and actions that best suit them. That’s fundamentally and inherently individualistic.

          The problem with many feminists today is they think this is best achieved by a powerful government using coercive power and/or giving out benefits.

          1. What feminism stands against the most is society, often backed by the government, telling women that THE ‘appropriate’ ‘proper’ and/or ‘right’ ways for them to act, roles and positions are this, that and that. All women are supposed to X, Y and Z, and all men are supposed to A,B and C. And they add the idea that the latter are usually actions, roles, and positions tied more to power.

            This is utter bullshit. What feminism actually stands for is defining its own gender roles which no one is allowed to ever break and which must be held to as stringently as Edwardian English gender roles.

            Why do you think feminists viciously attack any feminist who disagrees with feminist dictates? Ask a feminist her opinion on Christina Hoff Sommers and cover your ears against the vitriol.

            They hate her and they hate non-progressive feminists because modern feminism is a hive mind that despises anyone who thinks for themselves. It is among the least individualistic movements in modern America. Jezebel, Marcotte, Valente, et. al. demand total conformity in every way and to claim they care about ‘individuality’ is an absurdity.

          2. Feminists seem just fine telling men how they’re supposed to behave, as well as with making sure women who kill men or their children don’t face consequences for it.

            Feminism has given women nothing. Everything people attribute to feminism should be attributed to technological and scientific advancements (mostly by men) or to capitalism. Or to the good will of the patriarchy (how many feminists or women were in the Congress that passed the 18th amendment again?)

      2. “But seeing yourself as an individual is kind of a feminist thing.”

        Nice try attempting to get me to post the “Yes, we’re all individuals” clip from Life of Bryan.

        But seriously, feminism makes orthodox Christians look like a debating society by comparison.

        1. If “orthodox” includes Aquinas…and why wouldn’t it?…seems like there is a lot of debate among orthodox Christians.

          Your anti-Catholic bias is showing again, Eddie!

          1. lowercase o

      3. But the whole idea of being freed from ‘gendered expectations’

        You see no contradiction in using a gendered term as the label for the idea of being “freed from gendered expectations”?

  32. Why feminist vegetarianism? Because every ambitious political movement needs to poach from others for converts.

    1. “Sanjuro Tsubaki|1.31.15 @ 4:41PM|#

      Why feminist vegetarianism?”

      Feminist Cerebral Embolism?

      1. Feminist aneurysm

        1. Feminist plecostomism. You name it, we got it.

  33. So I was driving home from errands and was listening to Chicago’s Progressive Talk because I am a masochist.

    Apparently recently elected Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner criticized Pat Quinn this weekend, which led the delusional person on the radio to declare what a child Rauner is and to say ‘I’ve never seen a current governor spend this much time beating down a past governor.’

    How lacking in self-awareness can anyone get? I mean, it sure is a good thing we don’t have a president in office right now who has spent tons of time claiming all of his failures were the fault of the last president. If there were a Democratic president behaving in such a way, this would be a bit hypocritical.

    1. I guess when 4 out of your state’s last 7 governors have been incarcerated your standards are much lower for what constitutes success.

    2. “So I was driving home from errands and was listening to Chicago’s Progressive Talk because I am a masochist.”

      Outrage junkie.

      I come to Reason to get my libertarian outrage porn of the daily police brutality parade.

  34. “We’re all feminists, now.”

  35. Oh look, Bill Maher claims socialism created the middle class

    In the latest “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the host sounded off on politicians for repeatedly talking about middle-class economics, saying, “No one is telling the truth.”

    “The large, thriving middle class that America used to have didn’t just appear out of the blue. It was created using an economic tool called socialism,” said Maher. The talk show host went on to explain that heavy taxation and redistribution of wealth after WWII led to America’s middle-class success. “Yes, for a brief, shining moment, we were Finland,” he joked.

    As demonstrated by his comments on Islam and “American Sniper,” Maher is not known to shy away from controversy. On socialism, he added, “We can debate whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing to go back to, but what is beyond debate is that, that is what happened.”

    I’m inclined to think he realizes his audience is composed primarily of progressives parrots so after pissing them off by insulting Islam or Obama he covers himself by saying nonsensical stuff like that.

    1. “The large, thriving middle class that America used to have didn’t just appear out of the blue. It was created using an economic tool called socialism,” said Maher. The talk show host went on to explain that heavy taxation and redistribution of wealth after WWII led to America’s middle-class success.”

      If that were true, we wouldn’t be Finland. We’d be England saddled with all the crap they have.

    2. So it was redistribution (which almost always redistributes from the relatively poor to the relatively rich) rather than massive increases in labor productivity, i.e. more and cheaper stuff, that created the middle class. Interesting theory.

      I’ll share it with my father the next time he tells me how much wealthier his family became in ’49 when they bought their first tractor on credit and were able to plow fields in a day rather than a week by driving a team of horse and mule. And I’ll keep Maher’s insight in mind the next time I mow my lawn with a $1,000 lawn tractor that has the same hp as that farming tractor manufactured shortly after WW2.

    3. “Robert James ? Top Commenter

      He is right in many ways. In the “good old” days, wealthy employers used and abused their labor forces; poverty, hardship and a meagre existence was the lot of millions of Americans. Labor unions and social reformers, (usually called liberals(, improved the facilities available to the common man, thus releasing the potential for many to improve their lives and gain status as emerging middle class families. The long struggle to create the middle class and the organizations that enabled it are now under assault by Republicans and their mega rich donors as they try and emulate their forefathers. People like the Kochs fear any suggestion of an educated workforce capable of reaching the middle class and are intent on destroying it. They will spend billions to stop progress for the masses.

      3 hours ago

      Tommy Tone

      He’s not right in many ways.
      He’s exactly correct.

      1. These people should save their breath and just print up a bunch of END MONOPSONY! t-shirts.

        The idea that you can increase the market price of labor by political action (excepting killing part of the labor pool or preventing them from working via a high minimum wage) is the best example of magical political thinking around. Which is saying something.

      2. The long struggle to create the middle class and the organizations that enabled it are now under assault by Republicans and their mega rich donors

        Nevermind that the 1% have grown richer under the Obama administration, and the gap between rich and poor has gotten wider, and that Obama outfundraised his Republican opponents among the wealthiest donors and industries, like finance.

        People like the Kochs fear any suggestion of an educated workforce capable of reaching the middle class and are intent on destroying it.

        By doing things like, say, sponsoring free educational programming on state-run TV.

        It’s amazing that the kind of people who like to pretend they actually watch PBS have never noticed that every episode of Nova is sponsored by the fucking Koch brothers.

  36. How about you stop being a feminist altogether and start favoring gender equality instead?

  37. The talk show host went on to explain that heavy taxation and redistribution of wealth after WWII led to America’s middle-class success.

    Fucking causation- how does it work?

  38. I see no need to divide libertarianism. All people owning themselves equally is feminist in nature.

  39. By all means let’s have another 400 comment thread arguing both ends of redefining the term “feminism” to actually mean “libertarianism” even though it does not, and has never, meant “libertarianism”, has less relation to the term “libertarianism” now than it has at any time in the past, and would be redundant and therefore unnecessary if it actually did mean “libertarianism”. The 5 that we had during the Sharon Presley/Christina Hoff Summers flame war weren’t nearly enough.

  40. I also scoff at the charge that libertarian feminism is nothing but “identity politics.” Libertarian feminist political concerns fit comfortably within general opposition to over-regulation, over-criminalization, over-policing, and an overly coercive and powerful state.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Reason’s libertarian-feminist blogger:

    If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with. You have the right to not go into business, to choose a profession that will allow you to never deal with whomever it is you don’t want to deal with; you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway.

    1. More libertarian-feminist wisdom.

      ENB: Today, regular Slate columnist Emily Yoffe tells young women to “stop getting drunk” if they want to avoid sexual assault ? all in the midst of growing publicity for another terrible teen rape case in Maryville.

      Yoffe quote: If female college students start moderating their drinking as a way of looking out for their own self-interest ? and looking out for your own self-interest should be a primary feminist principle ? I hope their restraint trickles down to the men.

      ENB: Ladies, your lack of restraint is driving men to assault you! Always remember: Preventing male violence is your job, not theirs. This is quintessential victim-blaming. It’s so simple and oft-repeated that it almost seems silly to say but one more time, folks: To stop rape we need to teach boys and men not to rape, not tell girls and women to be smarter, dress differently or drink less.

      1. Thanks for the heads up.

        Yes, not so libertarian.

      2. “Conversely, we could all be sober as nuns in parkas and there will still be rape as long as rapists are shown that it’s okay and they can get away with it.”

        Therefore, throw all caution, common sense, and thoughts of self-preservation to the winds.

    2. Sigh.

      ” you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway.”

      Clearly she thought deep and hard about this and intimately understood the connection this statement has in consideration of broader libertarian principles….

      …or, maybe not.

      (she DID recently mention that as late as 1 year ago, she didn’t actually believe *political correctness even existed*)

      From FFF =

      “Libertarians…would argue correctly and consistently that, by their very nature, the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract include the right to refuse service and otherwise discriminate ? for any reason.”

      1. It *is* a bit hard to sell people on the idea of the mutual compatibility of ‘identity politics’ and libertarianism when it seems the latter will be thrown under the bus at the demands of the former at every possible opportunity.

        AKA = “Bleeding Heart Libertarians! =

    3. ENB was also in favor of the PPACA contraception mandate until about an hour after she got a gig at Reason.

      As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, she’s a pretty run of the mill tumblr sjw who had a libertarian come to Jesus moment as soon as a libertarian outfit started writing her paychecks. It’s not easy to argue from a position you don’t really support, so I give her credit for the attempt, because she does it with a fair degree of competence. But I don’t think anyone will be surprised when she’s doing her “Confessions of a former libertarian” penance piece for Salon in a year or two.

      1. But I don’t think anyone will be surprised when she’s doing her “Confessions of a former libertarian” penance piece for Salon in a year or two.

        Hopefully the many transgressions of our crude commentariat will be mentioned in that piece.

    4. “If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with.”

      ENB should swap any other social activity with “in business” and see how it reads. I suggest “having sex” as a start.

      It will be interesting to see how all the new Proggy writers last around here. Will they turn libertarian and drop this kind of piffle? Or will libertarian readers just get sick of them and move on? I know I’ll move on when it’s wall to wall Sheldon Richman.

  41. Feminism per SE is orthogonal to libertarianism. There is nothing necessary about believing in gender equality of one believes in some variant of limited government. There is also nothing inherently wrong with accepting moral parity between the genders. OTOH, there is no physical reason to believe in a literal equality in ability or inclination between the genders. Sexual dimorphism being what it is, it would make little sense to discount the physiological and bodily differences at play. Feminism requires these differences to be either minimal or even superficial in order that the strategy of destroying any apparent system which reinforces and/or recognizes these differences.

    Simply put, my problem with feminism is not a libertarian one. It is a realistic one: if the genders are different, comparative advantage suggests that it is reasonable to have each gender do what it does best — and even an individualist system like capitalism cannot make distinctions so granular that it will satisfy the degree to which feminism prioritize both female self-actualization and literal equality between the genders.

  42. I do not identify as a feminist. I am an individualist first and foremost. Everything that old school feminism wanted that was compatible with liberty has been accomplished in the west. Women can vote, women can hold property in their own name, women can work in any profession for which they are physically qualified (and some for which they are not, but that’s another story), and women can choose their own mates. Feminism as a movement in the first world is now about exclusion and government granted special privileges and THAT is the opposite of libertarianism.

    1. “Feminism as a movement in the first world is now about exclusion and government granted special privileges and THAT is the opposite of libertarianism.”

      Socialism in panties.

  43. Libertaire f?minisme est un bon sujet.

  44. “Libertarian feminism” has the same kind of ring as “compassionate conservatism”. In the latter case, GWB was trying to inform independent voters that conservativism, as it is understood by the general public, wasn’t philosophically suited to assisting disadvantaged groups. That schtick might have sounded good to some moderates, but pissed off more than a few conservatives who didn’t appreciate the backhand.

    I don’t think we need to sell libertarianism to women by saying, “Libertarianism, on its own, doesn’t suit you.”

  45. Howley was much more skilled and talented at making the disingenuous case for coercion in the cause of cookie-cutter conformity.

  46. In fact, many of the earliest advocates for gender equality and women’s autonomy did so from an individualist perspective.

    No, someone arguing from an individualist perspective would argue for a woman’s autonomy. But, I think it’s more than a stretch to say that an individualist would pay a lot of concern for the relative status of one collective versus another.

  47. ENB, shouldn’t the argument be, who needs feminism when you have libertarianism?

    One of, if not the main reason we’re so white and male and small is that identity politics is anti ethical to libertarianism.

    Obviously, we have a problem with that, but the way to address it isn’t to become more like them, it is to explain why our way is better and how it would actually help each group achieve their goals.

  48. I agree with the sentiment that libertarian feminism is an oxymoron.

    My reasoning is

    1.Libertarianism is an individual centered ideology while Feminism is a collective centered one. Even worse, it’s one that focuses entirely on collectively raising one group over another.

    2. There’s a similar group called masculinists. Can one be a masculinist and a feminist. If both are for equality, then they become redundant so why call oneself one or another. By it’s very namesake just as with masculinist, it’s not equal. It focuses on one gender over another.

    3. Libertarianism already addresses all of the positions that feminism and it hold together. The difference between them on the positions they don’t share is state power, and the difference leads one to shun fundamental aspects of one ideology over the other. It’s like identifying as a Christian atheist, one belief cancels out the other. Trying to reconcile them just makes it a disgrace to both beliefs or ideologies.

    1. 4b. I get the arguments given for it and understand that it’s likely impossible to get rid of it completely, I just don’t understand how an ideology centered on the individual can completely abandon said individual. An unborn child is like an accused criminal with no defense, guilty until proven innocent. But the people accusing them also went through that process and the whole comes off as hypocritical. If the punishment for being conceived is death, then we are all guilty and deserve to die.

      4c. And where the feminism comes into play is to make the whole argument as men vs women. Why should I have to choose between the individual and a collective? Some people present it as a battle between rights. At best, the issue comes into play where somebody intervenes siding with one person. Either way, you infringe the rights of somebody, and perhaps it is infringing to ban somebody from getting an abortion. I argue though that it is just as infringing if not more so to perform an abortion.

      1. 4d. The “More so” comes from the act that causes the whole thing. By having sex you should know you are consenting to not only the sex, but the possible child that may come about. If somebody gambles, they consent to possibly losing what they bet. Abortion after consensual sex is like breaking a contract. In cases of rape, what happens to the rapist? Usually not much, they get a few years in prison. In my state, they usually face about five or less years. Should the resulting child face a bigger punishment than the rapist?

        4e. While prison isn’t an ideal situation, I think they get off pretty lightly if their child gets the brunt of the punishment. In the old days, children used to be held accountable for the crimes of their parents. I say such a system is barbaric. It’s disengenuous to use such a tactic and disguise it as for women. It isn’t justice. The child is another victim of the whole thing, not a perpetrator.

    2. 4a. I will mention one issue in particular that I believe puts the two at odds. You mention “reproductive rights”. While I think birth control should be available over the counter, I wouldn’t exactly call abortion a right. There are several ways to avoid having a child without murdering them. Some solutions include adoption, contraception, and abstinence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.