Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Defending Freedom Feminism

Not reactionary, says the author, but rather a call for a reality-based, liberty-centered, male-respecting, judicious feminism.

Readers of Reason who happened to see a review of my book Freedom Feminism by Sharon Presley might conclude that I am a hidebound reactionary—someone with views antithetical to liberty. As Presley tells it, I believe most women are homebodies who would be far happier staying out of the workplace altogether. She confidently concludes that my views have “nothing to offer feminism, let alone libertarian feminism.” I wish Presley had engaged with my arguments instead of caricaturing them. Freedom feminism is libertarian feminism. 

Freedom feminism stands for the moral, social, and legal equality of the sexes—and the freedom of women (and men) to employ their equal status to pursue happiness as they choose. Freedom feminism is not at war with femininity or masculinity and it does not view men and women as opposing tribes. Theories of universal patriarchal oppression or the inherent evils of capitalism are not in its founding tablets. Nor are partisan litmus tests: It welcomes women and men from across the political spectrum. Put simply, freedom feminism affirms for women what it affirms for everyone: dignity, opportunity, and personal liberty.

I developed this freedom-centered alternative by studying the history of the women's movement. Since its beginning in the 18th century, reformers have taken distinct positions on gender roles. Egalitarians stressed the metaphysical equality and essential sameness of the sexes and sought to liberate women from conventional roles. By contrast, “maternal feminists” were not opposed to gender roles. They fought for an empowered femininity and looked for ways to enlarge and strengthen the roles of wives and mothers.

Contra Presley, I don’t endorse maternal feminism. I praise both schools for advancing the cause of women in the 18th and 19th centuries. Women appear to have made their greatest progress when the two movements worked together. But, as I make crystal clear: the world has moved on and neither theory quite works for 21st century men and women. That is why I proffer “freedom feminism.”

Freedom feminism shares with egalitarianism an aversion to prescribed gender roles: Women should be free to defect from the stereotypes of femininity if they so choose. At the same time, however, it respects the choices of free and self-determining women—when they choose to embrace conventional feminine roles.  Nowhere do I say women should stay in the home or that women who defy convention are “aberrations.” I simply note that, to the consternation of hardline contemporary genderists, many women, when given their full set of Jeffersonian freedoms, continue to give priority to the domestic sphere. Somehow in Presley’s mind “giving priority” means a total rejection of the workplace. Not at all. But many women, especially when they have children at home, do appear to have a strong preference for working part-time.

Freedom Feminism

No! insists Presley: “Sommers does not provide evidence that ‘many, perhaps most’ women feel this way.” Yes, I do. I cite 2009 data from the Pew Research Center on how mothers and fathers describe their “ideal” working arrangement. To wit:

A strong majority of all working mothers (62%) say they would prefer to work part time.Only 37% of working moms would prefer to work full time. Working fathers have a much  different perspective. An overwhelming majority (79%) say they prefer full-time work.

Catherine Hakim, a sociologist at the London School of Economics, got similar results when she studied the preferences of women and men in Western Europe. A 2013 national Pew poll  found that the higher the socio-economic status of women, the more likely they were to reject full-time employment. Among women with annual family incomes of $50,000 or higher, only 25 percent identified full-time work as their ideal.

As a freedom feminist, I respect men’s and women’s preferences. For me a good society is defined by levels of human satisfaction—not statistical parity between groups.  Freedom feminism stands for equality of opportunity for all­­ but neither expects nor demands equality of results.

Presley faults me for accepting the possibility that the sexes are equal—but different. “From a feminist point of view—and from an individualist one—Sommers' stereotyping is unacceptable.”  She reports that the consensus among “most serious scientists” is that gender differences are small and insignificant. She cites a few of her favorite feminist authors as proof.  That won’t do. In fact, there is a vast body of serious research indicating a biological basis for sex differences. In 2009, David Geary, a University of Missouri psychologist, published Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences under the auspices of the American Psychological Association. This thorough, fair-minded and comprehensive survey of the literature includes more than 50 pages of footnotes citing studies by neuroscientists, endocrinologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and psychologists showing a strong biological basis for many gender differences. While these particular studies may not be the final word, they cannot be dismissed or ignored. Presley’s instinct is to ignore or dismiss research that challenges her worldview.

Presley seems to be captive to a 1970s–style of “free to be you and me” feminism that sought to free human beings from the constraints of gender. But is that truly liberating? In a 2008 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a group of international researchers compared data on gender and personality across 55 nations. Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing, risk averse and emotionally expressive, while men are usually more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally flat. But the most fascinating finding is this: Personality differences between men and women are the largest and most robust in the more prosperous, egalitarian, and educated societies. According to the authors, “Higher levels of human development—including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth—were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality.” New York Times science columnist (and awesome libertarian) John Tierney summarized the study this way: “It looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller in traditional cultures like India’s or Zimbabwe’s than in the Netherlands or the United States. A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France.”

Why should that be? The authors of the study hypothesize that prosperity and equality bring greater opportunities for self-actualization. Wealth, freedom, and education empower men and women to be who they are. It is conspicuously the case that gay liberation is a feature of advanced, prosperous societies: but such societies also afford heterosexuals more opportunities to embrace their gender identities. This cross-cultural research is far from conclusive, but it is intriguing and has great explanatory power. Just think: What if gender differentiation turns out to be a sign not of oppression but of well-being—and freedom?

Some readers of Freedom Feminism have made a criticism, not raised by Presley, that has given me pause. Why call my view feminism? Why not label it “equalism”? I am tempted, but I still believe the United States needs a women’s movement. Though the major battles for equality and opportunity have been fought and largely won, the work of feminism remains unfinished. Across the globe, fledgling women’s groups struggle to survive in the face of genuine and often violent oppression. In the West, popular culture contains strong elements of misogyny. Women, far more than men, struggle with the challenge of combining work and family. Despite women’s immense progress, poverty rolls are disproportionately filled with women with children.

Anyone who cares about improving the status of women around the world should be working to create a women’s movement that resonates with women and men. A reality-based, liberty-centered, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world. Freedom Feminism is my humble contribution to that effort.

Photo Credit: cc

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.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Presley seems to be captive to a 1970’s–style of “free to be you and me” feminism that sought to free human beings from the constraints of gender.

    Yes, that was my impression as well, gender as a social construct. Which is ridiculous of course.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Define "gender".

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    In languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German, each of the classes typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.

    Then there is that other one that is literally meaningless and superseded this one after all those 1970s persons started running English departments.

  • KayMcKinnen||

    as Matthew said I am shocked that anyone able to get paid $6488 in a few weeks on the computer. my response ◢◥ WWW.JOBS37.COM

  • Latoya07||

    Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES... It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, .... http://www.Max47.com

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Let's have a tedious debate about the "meaning" of feminism.
    With lots of Jezebel links.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Amanda Marcotte said that taking antibiotics kill way more organisms than an abortion. Let's endlessly discuss this interesting idea.

  • ||

    Holy Jehosafuck. I thought you were making that up.

    I googled and wish so much I had not.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Heh heh, yeah she's special.

  • 904cc||

    Holy crap, I too thought you couldn't be serious, but honestly I should have known better.

  • M. Samuels||

    "Let's have a tedious debate"

    This story is at the top of the page. We have no choice.

  • SusanM||

    Dear lord, no more Jezzie links. I'd be interested in seeing what CHS makes of trannies and such, though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Freedom feminism shares with egalitarianism an aversion to prescribed gender roles: Women should be free to defect from the stereotypes of femininity if they so choose. At the same time, however, it respects the choices of free and self-determining women—when they choose to embrace conventional feminine roles.

    It seems to me that based on this quote that she would be supportive of an individual who adopts the dress, mannerisms, and such of another gender, or one who seeks to be androgynous, for example. However, I don't know if she possesses any latent transphobia that would prevent her from coming to the logical conclusion of her arguments above.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's have a tedious debate about the "meaning" of feminism. With lots of Jezebel links."

    There's this cognitive bias thing that goes on--I'm susceptible to it, too--where we give a lot of thought to something that we know isn't true, but then, somehow, at the same time, we start to believe it's an authoritative source.

    I haven't paid attention to Jezebel a lot, but from what little I have seen, they're completely wrong on just about everything. They're basically using feminism as an argument for state control.

    We don't believe them when they tell us what the solution to gender equality is, and we probably shouldn't buy wholesale their credentials as authoritatively speaking for feminists everywhere, either.

    Isn't a freaking lifestyle mag? Isn't it like Cosmo, but with less stuff about sex and more stuff about politics? They write sensational stuff to drive web traffic--they're like the Howard Stern of feminism. People who hate Jezebel probably spend more time talking about them than their fans.

  • Nooge.||

    Let's have a tedious debate about the "meaning" of feminism.

    Let's pretend anybody thinks it's more than tribal, sophomoric bullshit!

  • ||

    Yawn

    What's next ?

  • lap83||

    I don't understand the allure of isms. What's wrong with just being yourself?

  • lap83||

    I mean assuming you're not Nancy Pelosi, I think we'd all be happy if she was something else.

  • ||

    She is something else.

  • M. Samuels||

    I'd hit it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I hope you meant that literally.

  • ||

    Gigolo

  • Rotbard||

    I'd hit it. Then I'd hit it.

  • Killaz||

    A decade ago maybe.

  • Nooge.||

    A decade ago maybe.

    So when she was in her 110s?

  • Nooge.||

    I don't understand the allure of isms. What's wrong with just being yourself?

    Well, you see, the societal constructs of patriarchy promote a heteromasculonormative schema which systematically violates- you could say rapes- the weltanschauung of those groups which exist outside the phallic paradigm.

    NOW WHERE'S MY FUCKING TENURE AND GRANT MONEY, BITCHES?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What's wrong with just being yourself?

    DENIER!

  • wareagle||

    feminists hate Sommers because she doesn't buy into the victim culture, doesn't pretend that men and women are identical, and doesn't treat boys as a cancer to be eradicated.

    Perhaps unintentionally, she also raises another point why feminists deserve the mocking and ridicule they get -- they are constantly bitching about life in a society that treats women far better than a host of countries. Unless I've missed the domestic stories of genital mutilation, beatings of girls/women for going to school or being with a non-related male, stonings for assorted misdeeds, etc.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Gender equality isn't about treating women better than those engaged in the macabre.

  • wareagle||

    it's not like pretending that all men are predators, either, or that there are no differences between the genders. Summers' view is not the zero-sum tactic adopted by the typical feminist group that seeks state protection at every turn.

  • ||

    That's a mighty low bar you have set for society...

  • Rhino||

    If she wants to be taken seriously, she needs to drop the feminist label. feminist may hate her for opening her eyes and having some intellectual honesty, but as long as she keeps identifying with them, then she'll keep owning all those wack job ideas like patriarchy and rape culture, so her more sane look at women's issues will be overlooked. This is why a lot of people who want real gender equality call themselves humanists or don't label their perspective at all.

  • PM||

    Why call my view feminism? Why not label it “equalism”? I am tempted, but I still believe the United States needs a women’s movement.

    Well, at least there's one thing she and Presley have in common. Whatever you want to call it, a philosophy based on the NAP that applies to everyone equally nevertheless definitely needs a gender identifier in front of it. I wonder if we could possibly convince Ken Shultz to proffer an opinion. On the bright side, at least Sommers hasn't called us cute little faux libertarians yet for failing to validate that single point of agreement.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The name brand "feminism" is appealing to a lot of people out there.

    Libertarianism isn't about seizing the reigns of power and then forcing our solutions on everyone whether they like it or not, but even if that IS what you're trying to do through the ballot box? you're going to need more libertarians than we have now to accomplish that.

    So, if we're going to live in a more libertarian world, then we need to appeal to people who aren't libertarian now.

    In other words, there are a lot of people out there who don't know much about libertarianism but like the idea of women being free to make choices for themselves--and think of that as "feminism".

    We need to market to those people. This is like Bjorn Lomborg going on a Reason cruise--yeah, he cares about the environment. He might even call himself and "environmentalist". We need more libertarian environmentalists. Hayek was basically a Marxist initially--he came to his economics as the best way to help the poor! Now, you want to use the name brand "feminist" to make the case for libertarianism to women who don't know much about it?

    Please do!

  • PM||

    We already had this discussion ad nauseum in the previous thread. When you redefine terms so that their meanings are precisely the same, one of the terms is necessarily redundant. In the case that two terms both describe ostensibly the same concept of total equality, I'll take the one that doesn't have a gender identifier attached to it, as that seems to kind of follow from the logic of the definition.

    You could call it zambooeyism and pitch it as a new religion if you felt like it, but there's a certain hint of dishonesty, to say nothing of Orwellian creepiness, to intentionally pairing a word with an unorthodox definition that is already in use with a different word. Hayek notably did not begin using the term "Marxism" to describe an ethical system based on the non-aggression principle. There was already a word to describe such a system.

  • PM||

    It's also worth pointing out that even people stupid enough to be Marxists would probably have noticed if Hayek had changed the entire meaning of the term in an effort to recruit them to a wholly different ideology under the same name. That kind of bait and switch only works if you're passably forging the original brand or you're dealing with morons who could count their IQ on one hand. Which is to say that even if we accept your premise of molestation of the language as a marketing tool, it's not very likely you're going to successfully pitch libertarianism to non-libertarians by calling libertarianism feminism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Which is to say that even if we accept your premise of molestation of the language as a marketing tool, it's not very likely you're going to successfully pitch libertarianism to non-libertarians by calling libertarianism feminism."

    I hope she is successful.

    I think part of the reason we're marginalized is because the old tactics haven't worked.

    I think one of the reasons why people like Obama are so successful is because he uses these tactics all the time.

    I agree it's a question of tactics and which ones work the best. I'm not convinced that telling people not to care about specific issues is going to be a very effective tactic, but I'm open to other suggestions.

    In the meantime, I'm all in favor of libertarian feminists using the "feminist" label to get the word out.

  • PM||

    I think one of the reasons why people like Obama are so successful is because he uses these tactics all the time.

    Yeah, he's a smarmy asshole who will resort to cheap emotional manipulation and say whatever is expedient and popular to convince people to vote for him. On top of being utterly disgusting and insulting to anyone with half a brain, it's also very unlikely you'll ever out-emote or out-deceive or out-false-promise such people even if you try.

  • ||

    +1 narcissistic sociopath

  • Ken Shultz||

    For what it's worth, I think the only people who seek these offices are narcissistic sociopaths.

    It's like wanting to be a cop but much, much worse.

    For the time being, I was just talking about his "tactic" of using issues that people care about to connect to people.

    "If you care about [insert whatever flavor of big-eyed bunny], then you should support us" is an effective tactic. Many of Obama's other tactics are disgusting, etc.

    Unlike Obama, we have the advantage of solutions that actually address and solve the problems people care about.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "I'm all in favor of libertarian feminists using the "feminist" label to get the word out."

    I concur.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "When you redefine terms so that their meanings are precisely the same, one of the terms is necessarily redundant."

    I think it's just specific. She doesn't want to be confused with something she isn't.

    When she says she's a "libertarian feminist", she's making it clear that she is not some other kind of feminist.

  • AlmightyJB||

    All those words and I still don't have a sandwich.

  • PM||

    Obligatory TIWTANFL

  • AlmightyJB||

    The only part of that I understand is NFL.

  • PM||

    This Is Why There Are No Female Libertarians.

    You ought to know your Reason memes better than that. I am disappoint.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, it got it after I posted. haven't had any caffeine today. Or sandwiches. Headed to the pub across the street to rectify both.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You have no woman to provide you with caffeine and nourishment?

  • ||

    That he has no woman is sign of his wisdom.

    That he has no orphans who can stop shining his monocles while fix coffee and sandwiches is ... sad.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well I'm not that wise. I do have woman. She's out making money while I'm at the pub as God intended it to be.

  • ||

    It has been said that pimping is hard work.

    But you make it sound so easy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Hat tip to Andy Capp!

  • Boisfeuras||

    The only "equality" that matters is equality before the law; the rest are mere procrustean fantasies. And if you support actual equality before the law, it seems to me you are not really feminist in any conventional meaning of the word.

  • PM||

    Almost like the very concept of equality before the law would preclude the consideration of gender? I can assure you you will be persuaded otherwise once you are faced with this dazzling displays of logic and rhetoric.

  • mtrueman||

    "The only "equality" that matters is equality before the law"

    I doubt feminists would agree with this. They would consider it naive to think that one could magic away inequality with the passing of suitably worded laws. I agree with your latter assertion, that those who focus their efforts on 'equality before the law' are not traditional feminists, but traditional liberals.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I do find it funny how the media took the opportunity of the first ladies 50th birthday to discuss how pretty she still looks. Because still looking pretty is the most important accomplishment that a 50 year old educated woman could achieve. I guess I should be thankful she hasn't achieved more.

  • PM||

    Some might argue she hasn't even achieved that, but the eye of the beer-holder and all that.

  • ||

    Who are the first ladies, and why are they only 50 years old?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    After having spent over a decade debating feminists of all types I think that respecting males is difficult for the average feminist. Many feminists strike me as hardliners perfectly willing to broadly stereotype males with evils none of them can escape from unless the male is an avowed feminist himself.

    What I take away from the above is the idea of respect which is quite relevant to Libertarian thought. The idea of respect translates to property rights, individualism, civil rights, justice, and so on. Gender equality based on mutual respect is necessary for common ground which is a component of liberty. Without people of varying degrees finding a reasonable center on which to coexist we have struggle.

    What does perplex me is when she presents data that suggests that male/female roles tend to far more different when contained within prosperous culture. My view is that for the most part educated and prosperous societies tend to be very traditional and self-arranging as a group. I almost expect people within 'normal' wealthy social caches to be sticklers for social order and gender will naturally fall within certain 'expectations'. Now, certainly, there exist caveats but in large part wealthy society is largely a traditional one. I just don't see how this should have any impact on data suggesting what men or women actually 'want' in anecdote form which is then used to determine actual scientific gender differences.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Put simply, freedom feminism affirms for women what it affirms for everyone: dignity, opportunity, and personal liberty."

    Some of my fellow libertarians around here seem to think the libertarian solution to many problems that are currently associated with the left is to convince people not to care about them. It isn't just feminism that sometimes gets this treatment--for some of my fellow libertarians in the Hit & Run commentariat, it seems that the solution to environmental problems is not to care about those, too.

    Of course, that's baloney. People come to libertarianism with all sorts of different concerns--because libertarianism offers the best solutions. Our most intractable problems are best solved by free people making choices for themselves rather than the government imposing "solutions" on us from above. Many of these problems, like racism, sexism, etc., are problems of stupidity in people's hearts, too, and government "solutions" to those problems will always be inadequate.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Stupidity, yes, but also unproductive environmental conditioning and outright ignorance.

  • 904cc||

    Hey look Ken showed up to lecture us and be a cunt again.

    How boring.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That comment is boring.

  • 904cc||

    Yawn.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Not even a single counter argument?

    Don't you have anything interesting to say?

  • 904cc||

    You're the expert on boring, what can I do but defer to you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Have you tried trolling a thread?

    Trolls are fascinating. Everyone thinks so.

    Just start with personal attacks, and then go totally off topic.

    That's why people come here!

    To read your troll posts.

    Surely, you must have something interesting to say!

  • 904cc||

    "Have you tried trolling a thread?"

    Again, I defer to your expertise.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you think writing posts about the topic of the thread is trolling?

    You might be a troll.

    Seriously.

  • PM||

    Some of my fellow libertarians around here seem to think the libertarian solution to many problems that are currently associated with the left is to convince people not to care about them.

    The libertarian solution to any given "problem", however defined, generally is not to care about it - unless it starts violating someone else's rights. When you start caring about shit that doesn't concern you or doesn't violate anyone else's rights you've ceased to be libertarian, and whatever "solution" you propose is not libertarian. It's called the Non-Aggression Principle, not the Non-Bigotry Principle or the Non-Chauvinism Principle or the Non-Offensive Principle, etc etc.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The libertarian solution to any given "problem", however defined, generally is not to care about it."

    Free people solving their own problems is basically the best solution to whatever problem you care about.

    Did you see the recent headlines about how the government is marketing handguns to India's women, now?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25727080

    I'd rather the government weren't in charge of manufacturing, etc., but one of the solutions to India's problem with the way women--in some sectors--who are raped with impunity is for women in India to be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves...

    My point here is this: how can you talk about the problems libertarian solutions solve without talking about the problems?

    The government isn't prosecuting rapists, and the lack of a deterrent emboldens rape gangs? That's a problem we have libertarian solutions for! Why not talk about them to people who don't know much about libertarianism? (90% of everybody).

  • PM||

    That's a problem we have libertarian solutions for! Why not talk about them to people who don't know much about libertarianism?

    Self defense isn't a solution to Indian women being raped, it's an inherent human right; obviously Indian women are human, so they should be entitled to that right the same as anyone else. But even if you want to talk about it in the context of a solution to the specific problem of Indian women being raped, talk about it all you want. Just don't conflate the government purchasing firearms for women so they can protect themselves from being raped with libertarianism, and even if you're going to conflate that for libertarianism, don't further confuse people by referring to libertarianism as feminism to suit the context.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But even if you want to talk about it in the context of a solution to the specific problem of Indian women being raped, talk about it all you want. Just don't conflate the government purchasing firearms for women so they can protect themselves from being raped with libertarianism"

    Like I said, unfortunately, it looks like all the legal guns and ammo in India are manufactured by the government.

    However, women being free to purchase those guns and carry them to protect themselves is part of the libertarian solution to that problem.

    In other words, the libertarian solutions are the effective solutions--again. Score another point for the libertarian!

    Now what's the next issue so we can provide the world with yet another example?

  • PM||

    However, women being free to purchase those guns and carry them to protect themselves is part of the libertarian solution to that problem.

    Framing gun rights as a solution to rampant and unprosecuted rapes in India implies that the problem was the impetus for those rights, which makes it just as easy to take them away later after the problem has been remedied. The libertarian position on gun rights happens to nicely coincide with one possible way of addressing the problem of rampant and unprosecuted rapes, but addressing rampant and unprosecuted rapes isn't how you get to gun rights from first principles. This gets at what GBN was addressing downthread with the inherent danger of utilitarian arguments. Half the reason why liberty has been so severely curtailed is because of utilitarian arguments for curtailing it as a solution to some perceived problem. It can just as easily cut against you, and so it builds a shaky foundation for your principles.

  • The Old Guard||

    Except that no one in America gives a fuck about Indian women getting raped.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think that's probably not true. You'll see in Sommers' post, that's not true for her or other feminists.

    I can actually give you a few reasons why you should care about women in India getting raped!

    It's well documented that some of the world's biggest problems are a function of how well women are treated in the developing world.

    Everything from overpopulation to wars have been connected to the treatment (mistreatment) of women. Certainly, on overpopulation, people choose to have fewer children when women are educated and can contribute economically to the family by working outside of the home. It's also a function of infant mortality, which is also a function of economic growth (and women being educated and working outside the home).

    This cross-cultural stuff. If you care about immigration, terrorism, overpopulation, etc., you should care something about the way women in the developing world are treated. If women in Pakistan and Guatemala were educated and were working outside the home at the same rates as we see in the United States and Europe? The birth rate in Pakistan and Guatemala would be like the birth rate in the United States and Europe.

    This phenomenon

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some damn key combination I'm prone to makes stuff post before I'm ready!

    ...but that was the gist of it.

  • The Old Guard||

    But that doesn't reflect well on the cultural marxist narrative. Pointing out the fact that women in India face that kind of thing would make people think twice about importing a bajillion Indians into their countries. Plus, they don't want to point out the fact that the Non-Whites are outbreeding the Whites.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Why do you keep coming here Mercan? Don't you get tired of getting flushed down the memory hole.

    Sell your racist shit somewhere else. We ain't buyin.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Wow, Old Guard, that's really pathetic.

    Incidentally, "cross cultural", means regardless of race, too.

    In Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Jakarta, Nairobi, Tunis, Shanghai...as women are better educated and have more opportunities to contribute economically, they have fewer children, and there are a lot of other benefits, too.

    That kind of liberation happens because of economic growth--and sustainable economic growth depends on women's rights being respected, too.

    Why wouldn't we expect that outcome? Why wouldn't relegating half your labor force to housekeeping, cooking, and babysitting put a drag on economic growth?

    Think about it that way: if American women were suddenly deprived of an education, had nothing to do status wise but be a mother to more babies, and no longer contributed to the economy outside of the home, what effect do you think that would have on our economy?

    There's no reason why race or culture would interfere with that calculation either. It's even proven to be true in heavily Catholic countries!

    The reason places like Italy are dealing with a "graying" population is because as women became better educated and stared working outside the home, they went from having far more children than necessary to sustain population growth--to having children at a rate below the replacement level.

    Race, culture, none of it stands in the way of women who want both careers and (small) families.

  • visionquest||

    Are you serious? Culture never stands in the way of women who want careers and small families? I can't believe you wrote that.
    Saudi women have lots of money and Saudi college education is free, but because Islam gives males veto power over the smallest female action (even leaving the house), adult Saudi women can be barred from college and/or employment by their male relatives. Not even middle aged widows or divorcees can escape this tyranny. If they have no other surviving male relatives, Saudi women must look to 15 year old male nephews for permission to marry or to go to school or to travel or to seek employment.

    And as for "small families," are you unfamiliar with the fact that there's no such thing as marital rape under Islamic law? The husband may dictate terms and frequency of sex. And, even for Muslims living in Western countries, abortion rights are useless if you must seek your husband's permission in order to leave your house.

    Not all the oil wealth of the fabled Saudis can undo the misogyny of their religion and culture. We live in strange and irrational times when we confuse religion with race, and blind ourselves to the most blatant misogyny in order to avoid the appearance of "racism."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Are you serious? Culture never stands in the way of women who want careers and small families?"

    That statement was specific to birth rates.

    As women are better educated and have more opportunities for careers outside the home, they have fewer babies.

    In that sense, culture cannot stop them.

    And this isn't a principle in contention. This is an empirical fact.

    It doesn't matter what culture women are in--if they're better educated and earn wages outside the home, they have fewer babies. ...no matter the culture.

    It's true that some cultures are more hostile to women being educated and working than others, but even in those cultures, when women get educated and start earning money, they have fewer babies.

  • visionquest||

    Yes, but when a culture is hostile to women's education and/or employment, how do you make the leap? When the facts on the ground are that women seeking education are being beaten and killed, girls' schools are being bombed, etc, (see Afghanistan, areas of Pakistan, and boko-haram controlled areas of Kenya) what good does it do to speculate that IF the women had education, then they would have lower birth rates? The point is that they do NOT have education, and it is their culture that is preventing them from obtaining it.

    I hate to see Libertarians corrupted by the absurd Cultural Marxist doctrine of cultural relativism. Libertarianism becomes mere anarchy (and democracy becomes oppression) when it is not built on a scaffold of basic human rights. And some cultures mandate distinctly sub-human rights for the female half of their populations.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Are you unfamiliar with the fact that there's no such thing as marital rape under Islamic law?"

    The negotiation that happens between men and women over sex may be more biased in certain cultures towards men, but even in those cultures, there's still a negotiation going on.

    And let's not put the cart before the horse. What I'm saying is that ONCE women are educated and have careers, then they have fewer children. If they are denied the opportunities, you don't get the benefit. '

    Again, this is one of the reasons why I was supporting the idea that feminism is still important. Even if the laws in the U.S. protect the rights of women much better now than they did in decades past, that's often not the case in the developing world. And if the developing world's problems are affecting us here in the United States--and they're in no small part tied to women not being given the opportunity for education and to pursue a career--then that's something we should care about here in the U.S.

    If you're the kind of person who doesn't want a lot more immigration from the developing world, then you should care about women in developing world getting an education. Like I said before, conflict and terrorism has been linked to women not being given the same opportunities as men, as well.

    If you're concerned about terrorism coming from Saudi Arabia, you should be concerned about women in Saudi Arabia not being given adequate opportunities, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not saying that culture can't make it harder for women to get opportunities; I'm saying that once women get opportunities, the birth rate starts falling regardless of culture.

    In the early '70s, serious people used to argue about whether women would rather have babies or a career. I've noticed that when women are offered mutually exclusive opportunities, their first choice is often both: and that's the way it is. They just don't have four or five children and a career--they only have one or two and a career. And for that extra bread the woman is bringing in, men cave on the culture.

    Seemingly in all cultures.

  • visionquest||

    I am very concerned about women's rights in the developing world, thank you very much. But I don't think you can address those problems while maintaining a politically correct posture of cultural relativism.

    Looking over your original post, perhaps you are not such a cultural relativist after all. My criticisms are perhaps more accurately directed not at you personally, but at the totality of comments I read on this site, many of which try to establish a politically correct version of Libertarianism.

    But I disagree with your statement above about "negotiations over sex" in developing countries favoring males. Those negotiations too often take place between the groom and the bride's father. Under Sharia law, the bride (often under-aged) is not even a party to the marriage contract and has no voice in setting terms. So those negotiations don't just "favor males", they exclude the female entirely. A fact which ought to make any true Libertarian's blood boil.

    I wonder what you mean when you say "if you're the kind of person who doesn't want immigration." Kind of person. Is that a slur or stereotype against me? I certainly uphold your right to have a negative opinion of immigration-resisters - stereotype away! - but I hope you also uphold their right to resist immigration. A subject as important as immigration must not be removed from the realm of legitimate public debate.

    .

  • SusanM||

    "generally is not to care about it - unless it starts violating someone else's rights."

    Would it be truer to put "their" in the place of "someone else's"? I don't want to start any shit with this, but come on. For example, abuses of the judicial system covered here on Reason aren't news to anyone who's not a white male hetero. Is it covered here really out of principle or just because bad stuff is starting to happen to those who thought themselves safe?

    And I'm not even hinting about any deliberate slant or intent on the part of Reason or the commentariat. I've been here long enough to not think that's the case. Just a kind of ignorance when it's someone else in trouble.

  • PM||

    Ahh, I see where you got confused. See, you thought I was using "libertarian" in the same abjectly retarded identity politics doublespeak horeshit sense that you use such terms. I actually meant "libertarian" in the sense of "libertarian philosophy". The entire philosophy is premised on the Non-Aggression Principle, which simply states that the initiation of aggression (force, fraud, coercion) is a violation of rights, whereas anything that isn't an initiation of aggression is permissible. So to address Ken's point: libertarian philosophy would not be concerned with any perceived "problem" unless and until it escalates to an initiation of aggression and hence becomes a violation of an individual's rights. That individuals tend to be more aware of it when their own rights are violated than when other people's rights are violated is one of the sad biases nature gave us when it cursed with individual rather than collective consciousness. Sorry about that.

  • SusanM||

    And if you choose to define "Individual" as white, male, hetero and christian then everybody's equal, right? And then, when the law systematically holds people outside of your definition, whether de facto or de jure, to a different standard you can just dismiss it as identity and/or victim politics.

    Believe me, I really try hard to not buy into the privilege argument but when Reason makes a big deal out of police treatment that a black or gay person would see as routine, it makes me think the privilege pimps have something.

  • PM||

    And if you choose to define "Individual" as white, male, hetero and christian then everybody's equal, right?

    Yeah, libertarianism as a philosophy only applies to white, hetereosexual, male Christian individuals.

    Seriously, you're out of your depth.

  • PM||

    Also, go peddle this to shit:

    Reason makes a big deal out of police treatment that a black or gay person would see as routine, it makes me think the privilege pimps have something.

    To somebody who's never read Reason before. Like government treatment of gays and blacks isn't discussed here on a nearly daily basis.

  • SusanM||

    If you can show me a link to show that they were talking about them before the shit started happening to white, straight heteros - and in more than a token mention - I'd appreciate it and withdraw my statement.

  • SusanM||

    D'oh **white, male heteros.

  • PM||

    If you can show me a link to show that they were talking about them before the shit started happening to white, straight heteros - and in more than a token mention - I'd appreciate it and withdraw my statement.

    Probably fairly pointless since you'd have already noticed if you had a brain - and more than some token grey cellular matter - between your ears, but to take two really easy examples, Reason has been publishing in support of gay marriage since the 1970's and against "Stop and Frisk" in NYC since it was conceived. Since the pre-internet articles only exist in dead tree form, you'll have to settle for this from 1996 - that banner year for gay rights when hetero-male-white-Christian all rallied around the cause:

    http://reason.com/archives/1996/01/01/gay-rites

    And this from 2001 - when the entire white hetero-male-white-Christian community was already up in arms about racial profiling:

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....-profiling

  • AuH20||

    Susan, I look at these stories a different way. The law has historically been dickish to out groups, whether it was Jews in the 1800s Ukraine or unmarried unemployed males ie vagrants or blacks in the rural south (a lot of times but tkhe 1890s were super bad with false rape accusations against black men losing people elections and destroying the social system). Sadly, that has been the law's deal for a while: give us power and we'll keep the"undesirables" in line. Shitty but that was the deal.

    The crazy thing about the people e the cops are now going after is that the are e the police's traditional support base. The cops are so power mad that they are going after and losing the support of middle aged white conservative men. We know that the cops have been racist for a while. That they are now so power mad that they'll cut off their noses to spite their face is news

  • SusanM||

    That's the way I try to look at it. Really, I do try. I wouldn't be reading Reason if I thought otherwise.

    Nevertheless, I have to admit to an odd mixture of umbrage and schadenfreude when the people who've dismissed systemic abuse as victim or identity politics complain once they've been bitten in the ass by the same leviathan they tacitly encouraged.

  • PM||

    I have to admit to an odd mixture of umbrage and schadenfreude when the people who've dismissed systemic abuse as victim or identity politics complain once they've been bitten in the ass by the same leviathan they tacitly encouraged.

    Dismissing victim and identity politics is not the same as dismissing systemic abuse, so when you intentionally conflate the two in order to stoke your moral indignation it's not too terribly surprising that you wind up finding the conclusion buried in your premise. That libertarians oppose, say, statutory affirmative action doesn't imply that libertarians oppose, say, minority voting rights. That libertarians support, say, the free association rights of employers even if they are bigots doesn't imply that libertarians support bigotry. If you can't spot the difference, don't be surprised when you get dismissed as an unthinking drone in the victimology army.

    Seriously. You are really, really out of your depth.

  • SusanM||

    PM, bullshit. It's easy to roll your eyes and talk about "those people" who just whine about being imaginary victims when you don't have to worry about being on the receiving end, isn't it? It's easy to sneer that liberty doesn't and shouldn't mean equality when you benefit from inequality, right?

    So, tell me. Why should I not make a Faustian bargain with Progressive Liberalism? I don't like being treated like a piggy-bank for crackheads for shit but at least I can live if I make the bargain. I doubt even Rand Paul would flinch if conservatives found a way to reverse Lawrence v. Texas even though otherwise I'd really like to vote for him in '16. Yeah, I'm a one-issue voter, but that issue is kinda life-or-death, you know.

    Is there another way?

  • Rotbard||

    "Seriously. You are really, really out of your depth."

    Translation: Stop arguing with me. I'm right and you're wrong. If you insist on arguing with me, I'm going to insult you.

    "you'd have already noticed if you had a brain"

    Translation: I know how to do ad hom.

    "don't be surprised when you get dismissed as an unthinking drone"

    Translation: I can be as bitchy as a feminist.

  • Skomoroh||

    Written like a typical woman. Women have there own areas of privilege. Unless you can point me to comments of yours showing concern for men living 5 years less than women I will assume you are for it.

    Also white privilege is majority privilege. Unsurprisingly those with political power tend to write the rules to favor themselves. This happens all over the world not just in white countries. Really whites are the first group in power to actively discriminate against themselves in favor of those outside the group. Whites are ahead of other groups not behind them.

    The same applies to women. As noted above, women have and have always had areas of advantage. White men have voted purposely to discriminate against themselves in favor of women. On the other hand women have used their political power to extend their advantages. Witness the War on Women rhetoric when men are dying much sooner than women. Men are ahead of women on this issue.

    Summing up - white males are the most, not least, egalitarian of all race/gender groups.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I really try hard to not buy into the privilege argument but when Reason makes a big deal out of police treatment that a black or gay person would see as routine, it makes me think the privilege pimps have something."

    Part of the underlying message of a lot of Reason's coverage of these issues has been to get people to snap out of the idea that these things only happen to minorities and "others".

    It's not just the issue of police brutality either. They hit the drug war this way; they even hit the injustices of the sex offender lists this way.

    I think it's the case that much of white America has the idea that injustice is something that is never going to happen to them--and that's probably a big part of the reason why these injustices and abuse are tolerated.

    Plenty of suburban white people support things like the drug war because they imagine that mandatory sentences are only going to happen to minorities in the ghetto--not to their kids.

    I think Reason sometimes highlights ot when bad things happen to white people to try to debunk that misconception--that the bad things will only happen to other people.

    So, anyway, I don't see it as bias in the coverage; I think it's central to the message. I don't think they're saying to white people that it only matters when bad things happen to them. I think they're trying to tell people that government abuse is coming to your neighborhood, too. Don't think you're safe just because you're middle class and white.

  • The Old Guard||

    For example, abuses of the judicial system covered here on Reason aren't news to anyone who's not a white male hetero.

    Fact: women get 40% less jail time for equivalent crimes than men.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is that stat adjusted for single mothers?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Your last paragraph is absurd in light of the first.

  • SusanM||

    Is it, though? What I meant with it is that I don't think anyone here is deliberately bigoted. I'm just trying to point out that politics can be very personal and that if it doesn't happen to you (or the population segment you belong to) it just doesn't seem real. That's human nature and not a moral judgement.

    But, come on. Remember the shock about those cops who killed the homeless guy being acquitted in the comments on the article? Trust me that anyone who's an advocate for ethical treatment of the mentally ill would not have been at all surprised. It happens all the time. I was stunned that the story actually made the press.

  • PM||

    Remember the shock about those cops who killed the homeless guy being acquitted in the comments on the article?

    I don't. I remember a lot of disappointment and anger with the jury, but I expressly recall a distinct lack of shock. The first comment kind of said it all:

    Paul.|1.13.14 @ 7:16PM|#

    Fuck, I knew it. Fuck you, jury.

    Followed by choruses of:

    cmace|1.13.14 @ 7:18PM|#

    Once again, I'm sure the prosecutors exerted their maximum effort to get a conviction.
    Episiarch|1.13.14 @ 7:20PM|#

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED
    Ken Shultz|1.13.14 @ 10:52PM|#

    Injustice really doesn't surprise me anymore.

    You can be disappointed with the outcome without having been pollyannaish about the process in the first place.

  • PM||

    Trust me that anyone who's an advocate for ethical treatment of the mentally ill would not have been at all surprised. It happens all the time.

    Yeah, since libertarians were involved with advocating for the rights of the mentally ill back when it was still okay in polite society to discuss whether sterilization or permanent imprisonment was the better "final solution", you're preaching to the choir. I guess the dozens of articles published at Reason opposing stripping the mentally ill of their gun rights since the public hysteria of the last mass shooting also escaped your notice.

    The fact that you're finding patriarchal white male hetero privilege at play in a discussion thread where people got pissed off about an unsurprising but nevertheless infuriating verdict pretty well sums up this discussion.

  • PM||

  • Rotbard||

    Self-righteousness, thy pseudonym is PM.

  • TimothyZ||

    'The libertarian solution to any given "problem", however defined, generally is not to care about it'

    That sounds like a confused definition of libertarianism. So, are you telling me that anything you care about, we should go running to the government?

    Of course not. Libertarian philosophy, as it is generally understood, does not require coercive intervention unless somebody's rights are being violated.

    It doesn't prescribe indifference.

  • Rotbard||

    "Some of my fellow libertarians seem to think the libertarian solution to many problems...is not to care

    Are you trying to say that cynicism and nihilism are not winning strategies?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's not a good marketing strategy to people who care about those things.

    One of the reasons people support Barack Obama and his statist policies is because they don't know we have solutions to problems like the environment. They don't know we care about the problems of women and minorities--and everybody else, too!

    Barack Obama certainly didn't get to where he is by telling people they should stop caring about things.

    The Democrats sure don't care about womens' rights. They don't care about anybody's rights! In fact, many progressives are openly hostile to the very idea of rights. If the definition of libertarianism is the idea that everyone has a right to make choices for himself or herself, the definition of progressivism is the idea that those rights should always be subservient to the "common good".

  • Killaz||

    Are you trying to say that cynicism and nihilism are not winning strategies?

    The proglodyte's definition of 'nihilism' is anyone who has a different set of priorities than them, no matter if those priorities tend to be less destructive of beneficial social goods.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The problem with utilitarian arguments is that if coercion does happen to work in a certain situation it casts doubt on libertarian arguments for other things.

    Take the drug war. From a moral perspective, I believe it's wrong to incarcerate people for what they put in their bodies, not that without the drug war we'd have less drug abuse and it's negative consequences. If you argue for ending the drug war on the grounds of the universal unicorn rainbows that we'll have if we end it, you must cede ground if that doesn't happen.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The problem with utilitarian arguments is that if coercion does happen to work in a certain situation it casts doubt on libertarian arguments for other things."

    That is really important.

    However! The fundamental problem with utilitarian arguments is, was, and always will be its failure to count for qualitative considerations.

    And those qualitative considerations are the things people care about!

    Minimum wage is a great example. You can talk to people who lean left all you want about the total level of employment and why it means better pay for those unskilled workers who are lucky enough to get a minimum wage job at $15 an hour--and they don't get it.

    You start talking about how those unlucky ones who never get hired--will definitely be disproportionately African-America despite our laws against racial discrimination? and now, all of a sudden, those people who lean left are paying attention.

    Utilitarian arguments are very good at talking about quantitative consequences, but its qualitative consequences that people really care about--and we can use that to make the case for libertarianism.

  • Killaz||

    One of the reasons people support Barack Obama and his statist policies is because they don't know we have solutions to problems like the environment.

    You don't have a solution to the 'environmental problem.' You are just as guilty of overselling as Obama was in his speech where he promised to lower the tide. When real environmental problems like polluted water occurs, there are libertarian approaches that can deal with the consequences and manage them, but so can putting a gun to people's head. Given the later approach is the preferred 'solution' for most people, persuading them has to begin with a moral argument because coercion gets the results they want when vengeance on a corporation like BR or Exon is at the top of the list of the public's desires when these things happen over such factors as an efficient clean up. When these events happen, passions will dictate the outcome.

    They don't know we care about the problems of women and minorities--and everybody else, too!

    Rah. Rah. Rah. Superficial is so 2008. We run on an outdated message like that, we'll be even toastier toast in the polling booths.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You don't have a solution to the 'environmental problem.'"

    Individuals looking out for their own interests, capitalists, entrepreneurs, innovators, et. al. have the solution to environmental problems--to precisely the extent that people wish to solve them. ...and nothing unleashes those actors and their solutions like libertarianism.

    "When real environmental problems like polluted water occurs, there are libertarian approaches that can deal with the consequences and manage them, but so can putting a gun to people's head."

    I haven't met an environmentalist yet who thinks the environment is exactly the way it should be. Putting a gun to people's heads by way of the government gets us precisely the unsatisfactory amount and quality of environmental protection we have now.

    Furthermore, if people didn't falsely imagine that the government were somehow the solution to our environmental problems, they'd be much more proactive--and much more effective at addressing those environmental problems than the government.

    One of our central messages to people who care about the environment should be that the environment is too important to be left to the government to protect. If you don't want the BLM taking care of the public's land--for the benefit of ranchers and selling wild horses off by the hundreds to be slaughtered across the border in Mexico and processed as dog food?

    Then why the hell would you want to leave that up to the government?

  • Ken Shultz||

    You know what the problem with representative democracy is? It's insufficiently democratic! If you want true representation on things like environmental problems--and the freedom to protect land and animals as you see fit? Then get all that land out of the hands of the government and auction it off to the people who care about it the most.

    Do you know how many ranchers say they wouldn't be able to afford to ranch if it wasn't for all that under market BLM land the government made available?

    Why not believe them!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Rah. Rah. Rah. Superficial is so 2008. We run on an outdated message like that, we'll be even toastier toast in the polling booths."

    Then let's not be superficial about it.

    There's nothing superficial about my support for people's rights.

    Unfortunately, there's nothing superficial about the progressives' attack on the very idea of our rights either.

    They think we have the right to eat broccoli as we're told.

    No, really.

  • mtrueman||

    " the libertarian solution to many problems..."

    Not to care is definitely one libertarian solution, and it's sharp of you to have put your finger on it. Here though, I see another solution offered, 'equality before the law,' as though passing the right laws will address the problems that feminism raises.

    The genders and sexes are not the same, they are not equal, and pretending they are will not make them so. Sexism, patriarchy and the like have been around longer than any laws on the books. I agree with you that we shouldn't be looking to the government to impose its solutions, but that is precisely what libertarians here are doing, thinking that well written legislation will take care of the problems raised by feminism.

    I sympathize with the lack of commenters here willing to take on your arguments and are only willing to bluster and insult. I've found much the same. You being a notable exception. Is there another libertarian site where debate is taken more seriously?

  • The Old Guard||

    While you are right in criticizing the cultural marxism of Presley, I ask, how is your vision of "feminism" different from the realism of the dark enlightenment and moderate conservatism?

    Freedom feminism shares with egalitarianism an aversion to prescribed gender roles: Women should be free to defect from the stereotypes of femininity if they so choose.

    Is there any law preventing women from choosing to defect? No. Most feminists say they should defect, but you say it's their "choice." So why don't you just call yourself a conservative?

  • PM||

    She didn't offer an opinion one way or the other on what role women *should* take, which was the sticking point with the characterization that Presley made of her - that she is a conservative who thinks women should take feminine roles. I haven't read her book, so I can't vouch for it, but that was the crux of about half the article.

  • wareagle||

    that's another reason feminists don't like Sommers - she does not subscribe to their "you have to make this choice" view. The sense I get is Sommers thinks women should make the choices that best suit them as individuals, not the ones that any political movement believes to be correct.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In a 2008 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a group of international researchers compared data on gender and personality across 55 nations.

    It's worth noting that in this study, almost half of those countries are in Europe, the Americas are only represented by 6 countries studied, the majority of the Arab World is absent (except for the quite literal "outliers", Morocco and Jordan), and the world's most populous country with one of the longest recorded cultures is also conspicuous in its absence (again with the exception of the outliers of Hong Kong and Taiwan).

    Do the data reveal something significant about "the West"? Probably, but I would be more cautious about drawing conclusions about the rest of the world.

  • The Old Guard||

    You can't site the fact that there is something wrong with our culture being "misogynistic" based on what some Black man said. Blacks get away with anything. Blacks get away with saying shit like this:

    That's all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel. Every time you go to Hymietown that's all they want to talk about.

    And thus it is used by neocons to pretend that there is some endemic of Antisemitism. No White person could ever get away with saying something like this, but no one cares what a Black man says.

  • wareagle||

    I think people are starting to care a bit more of what some black man says, mostly whites who have had their feel of race being thrown in their faces with demands that they atone for things they did not themselves do.

    Obama is an example. His defenders got some traction tossing out the race card at any sign of criticism. Now, folks laugh at people who immediately scream 'racist.'

  • The Old Guard||

    Folks may laugh, but the media and the education system is still under solid liberal control. No serious(i.e., known) feminsit could get away with criticizing something a Black man does.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Blacks get away with saying shit like this:

    That's all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel. Every time you go to Hymietown that's all they want to talk about.

    Which is why, of course, that Black man went on to win the presidential nomination for his party. Because "Blacks" can say anything without consequences.

  • The Old Guard||

    That guy was never meant to be president for more reasons than his dislike of the Jews, nor, for that matter, is Kanye West. But they both get respect from the liberal establishment, Obama has praised Jackson in numerous occasions. A White man, saying those things, would have been purged from the public life long ago.

  • Calidissident||

    Kanye West is gonna run for president? And is there anyone who doesn't think Kanye is a douche? Even Obama thinks he's a jackass. Robert "White Niggers" Byrd was saying offensive shit till the day he died, despite being a former Kleagle, and the liberal establishment respected him.

  • 904cc||

    Hi American!

  • ||

    Blacks get away with anything.

    Well except calling a cop a pig.

    That would get most black men killed.

  • The Old Guard||

    You have obviously never listened to a single rap song.

  • ||

    Most black men are millionaire rappers?

  • The Old Guard||

    Despite women’s immense progress, poverty rolls are disproportionately filled with women with children.

    Tax cuts for the rich will be a big help in this area.

  • The Old Guard||

    What, if anything, does your book say about the Jewish role in promiting feminism?

  • Killaz||

    Today as I was roaming around the store, I discovered what a blessing it is to be five foot ten. If I was six foot three, there would be no women taller than me.

  • ||

    wut?

  • Killaz||

    Think about it. If you are taller than almost every woman you see in public, the 'statuesque' quality of tall women is going to be less appreciable.

  • Killaz||

    No wonder midgets are so horny all of the time. Even a normal sized ass looks like a mountain to be climbed.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't really like it when girls are taller than me, and I like short girls (5 feet to 5'4) so I guess I'm just not agreeing. But it's cool, different strokes for different folks and all

  • PM||

    Women taller than him. Boobs at eye level. Inconspicuous leering.

  • Killaz||

    ^And this!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "A reality-based, liberty-centered, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world."

    You keep a lookout for that kind of feminism, I'll keep a lookout for rainbow-farting unicorns, and let's see who finds what they're looking for first.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Libertarianism is a hard sell for ladies. (apologies for exageration)

    "So who will be there to protect me from muggers, rapists etc.?"

    "No governing body need be involved. You possess the liberty to defend yourself! Each person should be independent, autonomous..."

    "Ok but what number do I dial if my drunk husband gets violent?"

    "There's no reason the govt needs to perform that function. You could form a private network of like-minded individuals who pledge mutual protection, or you could subscried to a private firm that offers security services..."

    "Pass"

    "But the govt is ineffeicnt, corrupt, immoral!"

    "yeah but the cops almost always let me off when I cry and they never charge me to come out when i get scared & call 911. Sure, they shot our dog one time, but that was punishment because my ex-husband asked to see a warrant..."

    "But the cops arrest and execute innocent people!"

    "not many women. usually it's some gross/ crazy dude."

  • Killaz||

    "So who will be there to protect me from muggers, rapists etc.?"

    The big husky guy in a uniform. Nothing screams feminism like the preferred progressive solution to the crime problem, eh?

  • Rhino||

    you got it. think of all the things feminism fights for that is really just a way to guarantee male support of women.

    alimony, child support, obamacare, snap, welfare for single mothers, tax breaks for women owned business. the list goes on.

  • The Old Guard||

    What you are trying to sell is anarchism, a social system based on cultural marxism, just like feminism, based on the absurd notion that humans are naturally angelic.

  • Rhino||

    hardly. anarchism just doesn't differentiate between violence committed by people and violence committed by government. To an anarchist, the government may reduce violence among citizens, but it guarantees at least the threat of violence against everyone. No govt would be a net reduction in violence. Look at it this way. People who support gun control think they are reducing gun violence, but by supporting gun control, they are actually threatening everyone who owns a firearm, or might want to buy a firearm with gun violence, even though 99.9% of those affected by the threats are never a threat to anyone.

  • Redmanfms||

    Don't bother dude, it's 'Murcan.

  • ||

    Err...

    I think your characterization of libertarianism is pretty far into anarchist territory.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    But to think removing the ability of people to call the police when they are being raped is the heart and soul of middle of the road libertarianism seems a bit off to me.

    Government can have a roll in Libertarianism and seeing as how civil order and keeping bandits off the roads has been historically a public good that actually produces a public good one would think police might be something a libertarian would think might be part of the government we would want to keep.

    I just want to be able to buy antibiotics, drink unpasteurized milk, and have a weasel farm in my apartment. No reason to throw out police enforcing laws that prohibit violence.

  • XM||

    Libertarianism is a hard for the ladies because they want free stuff from the government and or want the government to take coercive actions to level out the playing field, even in the absence of any real inequality.

    So even though some libertarians insist that "both parties spend a lot and increase the size of government! They're exactly the same, team games not FTW", many ladies and their immigrant and or non white friends will vote for the dems, because they're more for increasing the size of government or violating other's rights for their sake.

    Not many women will detest the GOP but LOVE the libertarians. They'll probably hate them both.

  • XM||

    "hard sell"

  • Killaz||

    I recall a cop candidly making the (paraphrased) quip that he was a 'historian, taking notes for posterity on the crime of his city and time.' How effective they are at preventing crime is up for debate. Certainly they are a much more significant factor in populations consisting mostly of unarmed citizens and armed criminals than they are in those where the distribution of arms favors the law abiding citizens. I also get that in a minarchist society the roll of after the fact investigation of crime would still be a necessary function even if prevention was minimal, so their jobs would not be necessarily eliminated.

    One argument against anarchism that doesn't really persuade me, is the distribution of justice in such a system would mean some would do without. If justice was the result of their preferred system of voluntary courts, there would exist social groups who would not have their day. I will note that in our thoroughly statist system there exist just that. Can a runaway forsaken by her family who turned to prostitution and murdered by a deranged client expect anything to come out of the state funded investigation? No. Those are typically the cases that do not get solved. The distribution of state resources reflects the economic power structure, and in fact, reinforces it.

  • Astrokid||

    What CHSommers leaves out for some inexplicable reason is that feminism has left MANY men in ruin in the West. Over the decades she has documented some laws and social policies that ruin men, but she wont touch the biggest of them all.. Family Courts, False allegations in the criminal system.

    The recent documentary DivorceCorp shows hows Big Business & Big Govt have capitalized on feminism to put in place a ghastly Family Court system that has ravaged men and some women.
    Men with no reproductive rights, and can be destroyed by false allegations of child abuse/rape.

    Who is going to undo Conservative suspicion of men as big bad wolves, and feminist demonization of men?
    And Hoff Sommers wants to export feminism to the 3rd world countries, one she barely has an understanding of? No thank you. I am an Indian migrant to the US, and I have seen enough.
    There are numerous women in India against feminism. To learn about it, go to non-western sources. Why have you guys forgotten Noam Chomsky's indictment of Western Media in "Manufacture of Consent"? I recommend Anti-Feminist, Women and Vulnerable Groups Issues Activist Madhu Kishwar.

    A sample of women against feminism.
    Love, Marriage & Sex in the city-498A
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ssoNkci4xU
    Martyrs of Marriage - Documentary on Misuse of Dowry Laws - Promo 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXyb8rLRU4

  • visionquest||

    I can't believe anyone would cite India as being a good example of the virtues of non-feminism. India is a good example of institutionalized oppression!
    We all know about India's rampant rape problem. We know the caste system puts low-caste women at especial risk. We all know that some Hindu husbands beat their wives in order to pressure in-laws for more dowry. And some set their wives on fire in a fit of pique if they don't get the increased dowry. We all know that Hindu widows in India are poverty-stricken and ostracized from family functions, regarded as "bad luck," or blamed for having "bad karma" which caused the death of their husbands. We all know that, even today, some widows are pressured into suttee, throwing themselves on the funeral pyre. We all know that tribal councils often settle disputes by giving an underage daughter of the defendant to the plaintiff in marriage. And we all know that Indian Muslims regard their women as chattel. - Western feminism has gone off the rails because it is ruled by Cultural Marxists, but -even so-the follies of feminism are slight compared to the severe abuses of traditional cultures in India.

  • Astrokid||

    we all know.. we all know.. blah blah..
    So you know more about my country than I do, presumably from the comfort of your home reading western newspapers. cool.
    Then do me a solid. Why are all those women in the videos anti-feminist?

    Why does the Activist Madhu Kishwar (effectively the Erin Pizzey of India) say: Police Can’t Be “Women Friendly” Without Being Citizen Friendly
    In response to the Rape Hysteria of last 1 year, why does she reject feminist solutions and say this?
    Police & Judicial Reforms First Priority
    http://www.manushi.in/articles.....tsEJfso5ko
    or this..
    Feminism in India has no integrity. You can’t trust it
    http://mynation.wordpress.com/.....-in-india/

    India has several problems. But you guys have no clue what the causes are, and what to do about it.
    Lets look at what the US/Britain did..
    1) centuries of colonialism and plundering of 3rd world resources.
    2) When natural resources started running in Europe in 1400, it colonised The New World and mostly wiped out the Native populations, and thus relieved the stress on its dense European population.
    And you want to tell us plundered 3rd worlders that we arent able to control local crime as per your current standards. And that feminism is the solution.

  • Redmanfms||

    So you know more about my country than I do

    Ahem:

    What CHSommers leaves out for some inexplicable reason is that feminism has left MANY men in ruin in the West. Over the decades she has documented some laws and social policies that ruin men, but she wont touch the biggest of them all.. Family Courts, False allegations in the criminal system.

    If you are going to play that card, feel free to shut the fuck up.

    India has several problems. But you guys have no clue what the causes are, and what to do about it.

    I'm failing to see what British colonialism has to do with the Indians treating women like shit 67 years after independence.

    The U.S. is hardly a colonial power. We played that game briefly and gave it up a long time ago. Even when we played it India wasn't involved. So, are you going to find another way to blame Americans for how your countrymen treat women? One that is a little more convincing maybe...

  • Astrokid||

    If you are going to play that card, feel free to shut the fuck up.

    What part of "I am an Indian migrant to the US" did you not understand? I am sufficiently knowledgeable in both the cultures and history to carry on sensible discussions in certain areas.
    And why did you cut out the bolded portion in my "So you know more about my country than I do, presumably from the comfort of your home reading western newspapers

    No Really. To have an informed opinion on India, I expect you to have substantial first hand experience living there, or study contrasting opinions by Indian writers, etc.

    I'm failing to see what British colonialism has to do with the Indians treating women like shit 67 years after independence

    Thats coz you are on the retarded side, having already decided on the bolded part above part. You have a hammer and you are looking for a nail.
    Reread my stmt

    And you want to tell us plundered 3rd worlders that we arent able to control local crime as per your current standards. And that feminism is the solution.
  • Redmanfms||

    I am sufficiently knowledgeable in both the cultures and history to carry on sensible discussions in certain areas.

    Yet you make broad pronouncements with no substantial support, huh?

    No Really. To have an informed opinion on India, I expect you to have substantial first hand experience living there, or study contrasting opinions by Indian writers, etc.

    I've read a few of the English language Indian newspaper stories, and there isn't much you can do to color maiming, rape, and murder of women and girl children as anything other than what they are.

    Thats coz you are on the retarded side, having already decided on the bolded part above part. You have a hammer and you are looking for a nail.
    Reread my stmt

    Read it, understood it. "Hey, look over there, RACISM!!" statements are hardly valid arguments. You seem to think any criticism of Indian culture is in itself "colonialism" which makes the word essentially mean nothing, much like racism has become a meaningless term.

    I didn't pretend to know the cause, because I don't give a shit what ridiculous cultural reasons Indians have for being abusive shitheels, nor did I offer a solution. I really don't care how Indians get their shit together, but blaming the situation in India on "colonialism" and calling the criticism "colonialism" is weak sauce.

    If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity you'd know that, but apparently you don't.

  • Astrokid||

    Racism?
    Where did racism come into the picture? I am not one of those US Progressives to cry racism each time. You can continue calling Indians "abusive shitheels" all you wish.. I know a fool when I see one.
    Dig yourself deeper into the ditch.

    Here.. I will let you hang with Iran's Khamanei who has a special message. Note that his audience comprises women who are pretty much in agreement.
    Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: The European Races Are Barbaric Races (who beat their women).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1uqBsFJfIE

    Fight over who beats women more.. you fools. LOL

  • visionquest||

    You are hysterically funny, Astrokid. You cite Khamanei as an authority on women's rights? Would that be the same President Khamenei whose leading clerics blamed women's immodest clothing for Iran's 2003 earthquakes? (Khameni personally appointed Sadeghi, the earthquake blamer, to the prestigious post of prayer leader in Tehran.)

    As for "who beats women more," try using your brain instead of blind loyalty to the mores of the 7th century. In the West, wife beating is a crime for which one can be imprisoned. Under Sharia law, fatwas are issued describing how to beat your wife correctly. In the Koran a man is advised to beat his wife for purely subjective causes, "if you detect a spirit of disobedience in her eyes." In Islam a wife cannot seek a divorce on the grounds that her husband beats her.

    But don't let logic or facts get in your way, Astrokid.

  • visionquest||

    Hate-monger Khamenei's proposterous theory is easily disproven by the Koran itself. Koran 4:34 gives Muslim men the right to beat their wives.
    Aisha, Mohammed's "favorite wife" herself disproves Khmenei's silly propaganda. Speaking of her discolored bruises, Aisha says, "The believing (i.e. Muslim) women are the greenest of all women." Also, when a beaten wife comes to Mohammed for help, Aisha says, "Look. her skin is greener than her veil." Mohammed answers by telling the woman to stop seeking divorce and resign herself to pleasing her husband better. (Bukhari 7:6"715)

  • visionquest||

    Did you never hear of Stockholm syndrome? During our Civil War, some southern black slaves supported the Confederacy. So it's no surprise that, in cultures that oppress and devalue women, some women will hope to gain favor with their oppressors by supporting their own oppression.

  • Astrokid||

    Oh right.. they are suffering from Marx's "False consciousness".
    And you are arguing that OTHERS are Cultural Marxists? LOL

    Well.. suit yourself.
    Perhaps it is for the best that feminism has run amok in the West, and termed you guys as Historical Oppressors of women, and even current oppression via Rape Culture.
    And in an effort to deflect "blame", you are pointing to 3rd worlders and blaming them of the same.
    The idiocracy is progressing well.
    Live long and prosper.

  • visionquest||

    Stockhom Syndrome is a proven scientific fact. "False consciousness" is merely an excuse which tries to explain away the failure of Marxism.

    Marx never used the term "false consciousness;" Engels used it only to describe elite thinkers like Adam Smith. Only years later, when the workers inexcusably failed to revolt and prove Marx right (the nerve of those workers!), and when Communists parties in free Western countries failed to win elections, only then did Cultural Marxists like Gramsci attempt to excuse away the failure of Marxism by referring to "cultural hegemony" and the "false consciousness" of those disappointing workers.

  • visionquest||

    Your knowledge of history is weak and biased by Marxism. Europe did not "run out of resources in 1400." And Europe did not seek out the New World. Europeans stumbled by accident upon the New World while searching for a new trade route to the Far East, their previous trade routes having been blocked by hostile Islamic empires. Nor was Europe "densely populated" at the time. If you knew anything about European history, you'd know that the black plague had more than decimated Europe. (Perhaps you are confusing us with India, which is indeed "stressed" by its dense population?)
    Perhaps you should get your facts straight before blaming "first worlders" for all the world's problems. I got my facts straight before citing misogyny in India.

  • KayMcKinnen||

    what Louis answered I'm startled that a single mom can get paid $8343 in 4 weeks on the computer. view website ◢◥ WWW.JOBS37.COM

  • Rhino||

    bet she still collects child support.

  • Harvard||

    If the twatess would just turn out, reduce her rate and work hard, she could make such chump change in a long weekend.

  • Rhino||

    "In the West, popular culture contains strong elements of misogyny. Women, far more than men, struggle with the challenge of combining work and family. Despite women’s immense progress, poverty rolls are disproportionately filled with women with children."

    This is all not true. The US doesn't need feminism. There are places where women are oppressed, but as she cited, it's prosperity, egalitarianism, and education that those places need. That comes from freedom and capitalism, not feminism.

  • visionquest||

    We certainly need some alternative to the "progressive" version of feminism.
    The "mommy wars" of the 1980's were the height of progressive idiocy. (Mommy wars pitted working women against educated stay-at-home moms, who were said to have betrayed the movement by not working.) If you want feminism to succeed, feminists have to reproduce. Democracy is not inherently friendly to women, you know. Oppressed women, married to men who regard them as baby factories, tend to have far more children than liberated working women with exciting careers. Those children of oppressed mothers grow up holding misogynist views and pushing for misogynist laws. Those children outnumber the children of the liberated moms, so their views win out in the end.
    It is not Republicans, but multi-culturalists, who are waging the true "war on women."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Mission accomplished!

  • David_B||

    "Feminism" would be defending the 'characteristics' of the feminine, characteristics that are not necessarily exclusive to the female but which can and do also exist in the male to varying degrees.

    Female-ism on the other hand would be defending traits which are indicatively female.

    I think consciously or unconsciously pigeon-holing woman as 'feminine', hinders, rather than helps to eliminate gender stereotyping.

  • Paula Douglas||

    Why don't you just call it "freedom," since that's what you're advocating? Why does there have to be a qualifier of "feminism"?

  • kibby||

    Because the majority of people, particularly women (at least in my age range), have an obsession with labeling themselves in perfect little boxes to prove exactly how special they are.

    They're not, of course -- hardly any of us are outside of immediate family and close friends, but it makes them feel like they are and that's all that matters to those people.

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    I will refer to the question Romney was asked by an obvious feminist during the 2012 debates. She wanted to know what he would do to advance women if he were president. And he blathered the usual dribble instead of confronting what is obviously a wanting of a handout in the form of whatever affirmative action she thinks she was owed.
    This would have been my answer.
    "What is keeping you from engineering school? Or medical school? Or trade school? Or opening your own business? Now sit down and shut up."
    Real feminism is believing you are giving equal opportunity. It means you have to do three pullups to be a Marine. And if no female can do that then there will be no female Marines. No affirmative anything should be given. By propagating for affirmative action one is essentially stating they are not equal. That they need to tee off from the handicap spot.
    I respect the real feminists like Ayn Rand who understand the definition of equality. Those who don't I consider little girls wailing about their own failures.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  • AuH20||

    The weekend posters... kinda hate women,huh?

  • kibby||

    The weekend squirrels kinda hate you, I think.

  • AuH20||

    The weekend posters... kinda hate women,huh?

  • Rock Action||

    Manage your team, asswipe.

  • AuH20||

    The weekend posters... kinda hate women,huh?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    This is why Christina Hoff Sommers hates us.

  • Andrew Jackson||

    "Freedom feminism," "libertarian feminism," feminism." It's all the same disease. It hasn't been about equality of women for many, many decades. They're all pro-female, anti-male. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    You're not for EQUALITY (as it stands in any modern nation) if you're concern is only that of women.

    If you're concerned with equality, then you're an egalitarian. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • ||

    Presley's review was long on invective, and short on supporting cites and quotes.

    I'm glad Sommers was given, and availed herself of, the opportunity to respond.

  • OldMexican||

    Readers of Reason who happened to see a review of my book Freedom Feminism by Sharon Presley might conclude that I am a hidebound reactionary — someone with views antithetical to liberty.


    Not really. What I concluded was that Sharon Presley was a bad reviewer.

    Put simply, freedom feminism affirms for women what it affirms for everyone: dignity, opportunity, and personal liberty.


    I understand that you want to convince those sitting on the fence that might get the wrong idea if you just called it "liberty" instead of the more cool-sounding "freedom feminism," but I wish everybody stopped with the touchy-feely labels and simply shook the heads of those sitting on the fence and yell at them "I'm talking about your own freedom, shithead!"

  • OldMexican||

    She reports that the consensus among "most serious scientists" is that gender differences are small and insignificant. She cites a few of her favorite feminist authors as proof.


    Yeah, I laughed at the assertion and the gall of calling those charlatans "serious scientists," too. Glad that you noticed it as well, Christy.

  • JPyrate||

  • RishJoMo||

    Sounds like something woirth defending dude. Wow.

    www.AnonPlanet.tk

  • Skomoroh||

    "The authors of the study hypothesize that prosperity and equality bring greater opportunities for self-actualization."

    These authors have it backwards. Prosperous groups are prosperous because their evolutionary track had more specialized labor between the sexes. People come first then culture and institutions.

    "Anyone who cares about improving the status of women around the world should be working to create a women’s movement that resonates with women and men."

    I wonder if Sommers would agree with this -

    Anyone who cares about improving the status of men around the world should be working to create a men’s movement that resonates with women and men.

    Believe it or not, Christina, men have our own set of problems.

  • Rock Action||

    Kris Kristofferson is a badass even when you make him a child and put him in a 70's feminist video, I guess.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_26FOHoaC78

  • Paul A'Barge||

    Feminism is evil. All of it. And this article is a load 'o crap.

  • ||

  • ibcbet||

    Some might argue she hasn't even achieved that, but the eye of the beer-holder and all that.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Freedom feminism stands for the moral, social, and legal equality of the sexes"

    If it's about equality of the sexes, why does it refer to only one sex in it's name?

  • Robert Riversong||

    Because radical feminism hopes to emasculate men and turn them into puppies for the pleasure of powerful women.

  • Robert Riversong||

    To understand how the feminist movement has become its own worst enemy, see: Feminism Has Cannibalized Itself

  • ahmed kamel||

    Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique à un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 dernières années et ce blog est vraiment bon cet écrivain a les capacités pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci

    اخبار مصر
    الابراج

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • "One sane voice fighting tons of nonsense."

  • Subscribe