*
Libertarianism as a tool to attack Feminism (Women Only)
Wed, 2014-06-18 15:11
#1
Libertarianism as a tool to attack Feminism (Women Only)
Wed, 2014-06-18 15:17
#2
Libertarian or individualist feminism doesn’t promote women’s rights it promotes the rights of individuals, some of whom happen to be women.
Who decides who is a feminist and who isn’t? That is like asking who decides who is a libertarian. The individual decides for themselves, but the group does not have to accept someone as such. If I say I am a libertarian, but follow that up by promoting anti-libertarian ideas, other libertarians are going to denounce me and exclude me. So who decides? Feminists decide individually if we believe someone really is a member of our group or not. Collectively we have the right to reject people who claim to be feminist while espousing anti-feminist ideals.
Feminism is built on the foundation that men and women are treated unequally because of our biological differences and that men have the upper-hand and a systemic unfair advantage built over centuries much as Caucasians have an unfair advantage over visible minorities.
Treating women as individuals, and fighting only for individual rights, entrenches current inequalities and sterotypes. It would be like stripping Aboriginals of any special rights and privileges and saying, okay, you are equal now. Someday in the very distant future racism will no longer exist (hopefully) and race will finally be immaterial.
Sex will never be immaterial. We will always, collectively, be responsible for maintaining the existence of the human race. Test tube babies and womb transplants to men may exist in the future but it will never be the norm.
Treating men and women exactly the same does not achieve equality for women because we do have the extra responsibility, collectively, of the survival of the human race.
Libertarianism denies the biological differences that require women to be treated differently in order to achieve individual, social, and political equality. It positions having children as a personal choice women make that they should deal with as individuals.
http://www.alf.org/ (Association of Libertarian Feminists)encourage women to become economically self-sufficient
encourage women to be psychologically independent
publicize and promote realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential
oppose the abridgement of individual rights by any government on the basis of gender
work toward changing sexist attitudes and behavior exhibited by individuals
provide a libertarian alternative to those aspects of the women's movement that discourage independence and individuality
The first point, encourage women to become economically self-sufficient, is an argument against financial supports directed at women, employment insurance benefits during and after pregnancy for example, or allowing mothers with young children to be considered fulltime students with only 2 courses for the benefit of government bursaries.
The second point. encourage women to be psychologically independent, puzzled me because we are just as psychologically independent as men are. I suspect this is code for “don't expect government help".
The third point is, publicize and promote realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential. What the heck does that mean? Women have the same innate qualities as men do in terms of competence, achievement and potential. What is it we are supposed to be "realistic" about?
The fourth point, oppose the abridgement of individual rights by any government on the basis of gender, would oppose all affirmative action.
The fifth point, work toward changing sexist attitudes and behavior exhibited by individuals, does not mention institutional sexism.
The sixth point, provide a libertarian alternative to those aspects of the women's movement that discourage independence and individuality, is a declaration of war against all feminist proposals that help women collectively. For example, free birth control could be said to discourage independence and individuality. Same goes for programs intended to encourage girls to go into science and math programs.
Interestingly when I googled define “Libertarian Feminism” I got nothing although this was offered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminismIndividualist feminists attempt to change legal systems in order to eliminate class privileges and gender privileges and to ensure that individuals have equal rights, including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property. Individualist feminism encourages women to take full responsibility for their own lives. It also opposes any government interference into the choices adults make with their own bodies because, it contends, such interference creates a coercive hierarchy (such as patriarchy).[2][3]
Individualist feminism was cast to appeal to "younger women ... of a more conservative generation"[4] and includes concepts from Rene Denfeldand Naomi Wolf, essentially that "feminism should no longer be about communal solutions to communal problems but individual solutions to individual problems",[4] and concepts from Wendy McElroy and especially Joan Kennedy Taylor.
The Association of Libertarian Feminists, founded in 1973 by Tonie Nathan, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential nominee in 1972, is one of a number of different kinds of individualist feminist organizations.[5] It takes a strong anti-government and pro-choice stand.[6][7] Other libertarianfeminist organizations include Mothers for Liberty, the Mother's Institute, and the Ladies of Liberty Alliance.[citation needed]
Libertarian or individualist feminism is an oxymoron. It is an academic game that turns feminism into an empty academic philosophy with no practical bearing on life because there are no women's rights, only individual rights.
Individual solutions to individual problems leaves women out in the cold. It denies the existence of collective problems. It denies the enormous impact of being the sex that gives birth to children both in the past, the present and the future, has on us and how that has situated us in the world.
To Libertarian “feminists” giving birth is just an extra personal choice women have that men don’t.
Libertarian or individualist feminism doesn’t promote women’s rights it promotes the rights of individuals, some of whom happen to be women.
Debating whether or not they can use the term “feminist” to describe themselves is an academic exercise in futility.
Libertarians only recognize individual rights not women's rights.
Male libertarians using libertarian arguments against feminism under the guise of being libertarian feminists themselves subvert the feminist forum.
Wed, 2014-06-18 15:17
#3
As a prelude to discourse, rather than proclaiming who is not permitted to post in your threads, a, perhaps spend some time discussing your definition of your title.
Wed, 2014-06-18 15:37
#4
Feminists decide individually if we believe someone really is a member of our group or not. Collectively we have the right to reject people who claim to be feminist while espousing anti-feminist ideals.
Babble is a privately owned message board. I hope that the views of women babblers who identify as feminists are given great weight in deciding how it should be moderated (while recognizing that it isn’t a democracy).
The purpose of feminism as a movement is to promote the collective rights of women as a class.
Do you agree that libertarian arguments against collective rights should be banned as subversively disruptive to feminist discourse?
Does it matter if the person is a man or a woman?
Any other thoughts?
Wed, 2014-06-18 16:34
#5
You will find there are few if any libertarians of any stripe posting on this board. I think there is a very good reason you could not find the term libertarian feminist because if there are any they are so few and far between that they are sometimes thought to be mythological. I think REAL women in Canada would be a similar organization to some of the ones in the states but noone on this board would consider them feminists.
Wed, 2014-06-18 16:56
#6
Whether or not they identify as libertarians I have read many arguments from men pitting individual rights against collective rights.
Would be nice if the men could allow the women to have a conversation about feminism.
Wed, 2014-06-18 17:01
#7
Sorry I thought you were talking about feminism from a feminist perspective not men's arguments on Libertarianism. I was trying to talk about women who are also libertarians rather than men who have ant-feminist views. My apologies for not understanidng your focus.
Wed, 2014-06-18 17:15
#8
Sorry I thought you were talking about feminism from a feminist perspective not men's arguments on Libertarianism. I was trying to talk about women who are also libertarians rather than men who have ant-feminist views. My apologies for not understanidng your focus.
Thank-you, I appreciate the consideration. It is more that I would just like an opportunity to discuss feminism and the forum solely from the perspective of the women of babble.
Wed, 2014-06-18 18:37
#9
Thank you Catchfire :) I take it the change in title means we can have a women's thread.
Wed, 2014-06-18 19:56
#10
had not thought about any of this. maybe because i don't consider myself a feminist and know little about libertarianism. anyway...i see the same , no i know it, libertarian arguements by those who call themselves humanists and declare men are just as bad off from a patriarchial society as women, so we women need to fight for men rights to be free of patriarchy too.
now i have learned something i can argue ask this with them.
Wed, 2014-06-18 21:21
#11
fortunate, I know you didn't raise the issue, but I still want to assure you that this thread is not a sneaky way to approach the sex work debate that is already being held in multiple threads. I acknowledge that their are legitimate feminist arguments on both sides of the debate concerning the use of legal means to deal with sex work. I don't accept the libertarian argument but that doesn't mean there aren't other arguments that are equally significant.
Again, I don't want to talk about sex work in this thread although I can't stop others from referencing it. I am specifically using the terms you prefer in this thread to show good faith.
I know that there is no way that some of us will be friends necessarily but I would like this thread to be welcoming to all women who identify as feminists or not unless they are actively anti-feminist.
I broached the topic as a debate on libertarian individualists versus feminism because I feel that it is one of the philosophies being used to undermine us but I don't think the topic ends with that.
I want to get back to the core principles of feminism.
Thu, 2014-06-19 01:29
#12
fortunate, I know you didn't raise the issue, but I still want to assure you that this thread is not a sneaky way to approach the sex work debate that is already being held in multiple threads. I acknowledge that their are legitimate feminist arguments on both sides of the debate concerning the use of legal means to deal with sex work. I don't accept the libertarian argument but that doesn't mean there aren't other arguments that are equally significant.
Again, I don't want to talk about sex work in this thread although I can't stop others from referencing it. I am specifically using the terms you prefer in this thread to show good faith.
I know that there is no way that some of us will be friends necessarily but I would like this thread to be welcoming to all women who identify as feminists or not unless they are actively anti-feminist.
I broached the topic as a debate on libertarian individualists versus feminism because I feel that it is one of the philosophies being used to undermine us but I don't think the topic ends with that.
I want to get back to the core principles of feminism.
You just brought up sex work, not me. At the time of my post, all you had was a No Boyz Aloud sign up on the door, and no definition of what you wanted to be discussed in this topic. Since my post, you have seemingly fully explained what you are seeking. Perhaps take the time to edit out your post so it won't go off topic.
Why are there so many different factions? I am not sure if an exclusion of others who identify as feminists is really the way to get ahead. Cliques and cliquishness (made up word) is divisive, and it is everything that is wrong with girls/women in traditional society. (i.e. competitive, exclude some while including others, bullying in other words. Didn't feminism used to say, we are all one united for one goal? Then women of colour determined that the mainliners goals were not the same as their goals, and then some decided that if a woman wore makeup she wasn't sufficiently engaged and so she needed to go as well. And on and on.
I have posted the link elsewhere it is off topic, but in the article Rosie DiManno says something that resonates with me because it is exactly how I see myself:
I’m a feminist, have always been a feminist, will forever remain a feminist, though no longer find it necessary to bleat and brandish that term as if firing off an F-word fusillade. It’s in my bones, my DNA, my O-positive blood type and every word I’ve ever committed to paper. What I’m most adamantly not is a feminist evangelical who will find concordance and compatibility with preachy prudes, whether the REAL Women subset of Stepford Wives or the do-gooder Agony Aunts pushing condoms and exit strategy, each end of the ideological spectrum stiff and unyielding and witheringly judgmental.
Thu, 2014-06-19 01:45
#13
double post, having trouble with my connection tonight.
Thu, 2014-06-19 03:04
#14
Feminists don't exclude other feminists with different political perspectives, but on the other hand having a vagina doesn't mean someone is automatically feminist because then it would be meaningless.
Women represent 50% of the population of the world and we belong to all socio-economic and cultural groups on the planet. We are bonded by our experiences of womanhood which are common to each other but we are also separated by vastly different life situations.
Black women felt their primary concerns were not reflected in the concerns of mainstream feminism because they faced different problems due to being black women. White women were concerned about the sexist depictions of women in the media, black women were concerned about not being depicted at all. I just posted another thread that is a challenge from an indigenous woman to the feminists of Canada concerning land claims and Canadian feminist responsibility. Class differences create an extra level of exploitation. White women are half of the race that subjegated black women. That's not gone just because we are all feminists now. Just as men are living priveleged lives due to their sex, so are white women due to their colour. So there are bound to be stresses amongst feminists with different life concerns.
The thing about feminists being against women wearing make-up etc. was ridiculously overblown and never a goal of the feminist movement. Those who want to ridicule feminists always choose the most extreme examples of feminist theory pretending that feminists want to impose it. The examples become cliches and urban legends. For example, feminists never burned their bras.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp
The most dedicated feminists especially those involved in academia do belong to different "schools" of feminism but most feminists don't really know that much about them. I don't identify with a particular school of feminism.
Rosie DiManno says::
I’m a feminist, have always been a feminist, will forever remain a feminist, though no longer find it necessary to bleat and brandish that term as if firing off an F-word fusillade. It’s in my bones, my DNA, my O-positive blood type and every word I’ve ever committed to paper. What I’m most adamantly not is a feminist evangelical who will find concordance and compatibility with preachy prudes, whether the REAL Women subset of Stepford Wives or the do-gooder Agony Aunts pushing condoms and exit strategy, each end of the ideological spectrum stiff and unyielding and witheringly judgmental.
DiManno is being pretty witheringly judgemental herself. It's possible to disagree with other women without name-calling. The SCC considers most street workers to be there against their will and to want to exit. Giving out condoms and offering exit strategies is a good thing. In Germany a religious group runs a "living room" to give the women somewhere to shower, eat and relax. They don't deserve to be demonized and ridiculed for the things they do that do help women.
Thu, 2014-06-19 07:17
#15
Whether or not they identify as libertarians I have read many arguments from men pitting individual rights against collective rights.
Would be nice if the men could allow the women to have a conversation about feminism.
Its a false dicotomy, because it assumes that prostitution is against collective rights, the truth is protecting the right to choice is in collective interest because any member of that collect group (women) can make the choice to particapate either as client or prostitute, and attacking that individuals right removes it for all. e
Thu, 2014-06-19 08:26
#16
I think there are more so-called "libertarian feminists" of the type you mention in the US. I came up against them looking at the childfree movement, because there are such people who oppose paid parental leaves and other measures to help parents (in particular mothers, for biological reasons) in the workforce. One such person spoke on CBC Montréal a few years back and they called me to go to the studio to present the opposing argument, on how parental leaves benefit all society and that people who are not biological parents should be able to get similar leaves for "compassionate" reasons with respect to chosen family.
I wouldn't call women a "class", but that is more a theoretical quibble than anything else. Why not simply a "sex", and oppressed on that basis. This doesn't just apply to mothers though, and it applies at all ages, before and after possible motherhood.
Thu, 2014-06-19 12:16
#17
I think there are more so-called "libertarian feminists" of the type you mention in the US. I came up against them looking at the childfree movement, because there are such people who oppose paid parental leaves and other measures to help parents (in particular mothers, for biological reasons) in the workforce. One such person spoke on CBC Montréal a few years back and they called me to go to the studio to present the opposing argument, on how parental leaves benefit all society and that people who are not biological parents should be able to get similar leaves for "compassionate" reasons with respect to chosen family.I wouldn't call women a "class", but that is more a theoretical quibble than anything else. Why not simply a "sex", and oppressed on that basis. This doesn't just apply to mothers though, and it applies at all ages, before and after possible motherhood.
I am using the word "class" in this sense:
-a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality.
Saying women are an oppressed sex rather than an oppressed class suggests oppressing women is different than oppressing other kinds of people.
I'm happy you were there to explain the benefits to society. The drive to turn everyone into individuals with only individual rights and choices is harmful to society but it is most harmful to women and children.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/16/james-moore-on-the-defensive-for...
“We’ve never been wealthier as a country than we are right now. Never been wealthier,” the B.C. MP said in the interview. “Certainly, we want to make sure that kids go to school full-bellied, but is that always the government’s job to be there to serve people their breakfast? Empowering families with more power and resources so they can feed their own children, I think is a good thing.
“The government..is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so.”
But Moore said Monday his statement was “insensitive.”
“I know the cause of fighting poverty is not helped by comments like those I made last week. For that, I am sorry,” he said in a statement on his website. “I made an insensitive comment that I deeply regret. I apologize. Caring for each other is a Canadian ethic that I strongly believe in – always have and always will. Of course poverty is an issue that concerns me, and concerns all Canadians.”
Earlier in the interview, Moore said the federal government was “not going to usurp the province’s jurisdiction” on child poverty.
“How one scales and defines poverty is not an apples to apples comparison right across the country,” he said.
“Prosperity is up, unemployment is down in every region of the country. More Canadians are working than ever before. A million new jobs have been created across this country and through economic growth you create more prosperity.”
Prosperity for whom?
I think in the drive towards individual rights and freedoms people have lost the understanding that when we act collectively we are better off individually. We don't help each other purely out of charity, we help each other because it creates a more enjoyable society to live within. Younger generations depend on older generations until those generations are the ones in need. Women are intimately connected to the care cycle.
Thu, 2014-06-19 12:49
#18
Whether or not they identify as libertarians I have read many arguments from men pitting individual rights against collective rights.Its a false dicotomy, because it assumes that prostitution is against collective rights, the truth is protecting the right to choice is in collective interest because any member of that collect group (women) can make the choice to particapate either as client or prostitute, and attacking that individuals right removes it for all. eWould be nice if the men could allow the women to have a conversation about feminism.
I'm not talking about prostitution or laws. I'm trying to have a conversation about feminism that has nothing at all to do with sex work because it has dominated feminist discussion and there are other things we need to talk about. Much like the Pope said about gay marriage and abortion, they are important topics but we can set them aside to address other important issues.
Our discussions are fragmented into separate conversations about specifics, like child care or prostitution or sexual assaults but we don't discuss the heart of feminism and how it relates to various other systems like libertarianism and even capitalism.
What is common to all schools of feminism? Are they diametrically opposed? Do schools of feminism even matter? Is there a difference between being a feminist, and being part of the feminist movement? Is there an ultimate goal?
I want to explore feminism so I can talk to my daughter about it more intelligently, not about the different schools of feminism, but about the heart of feminism and why it needs to exist.
Thu, 2014-06-19 12:58
#19
This thread is about feminism, which is a movement for the liberation of women, I am requesting that this thread be limited to the women of babble.
I would appreciate it if the men would refrain from posting until after a moderator makes a call on my request.
Thu, 2014-06-19 13:12
#20
P.S. @ fortunate, notice I didn't do a bunch of little quotes in my response to you? Can't say I won't do it at other points in this thread but I will promise you that I will try very hard to minimize it when responding to you because it annoys you. I'm being sincere and as respectful as I know how to be. Because we are still at loggerheads over a life and death topic I understand that a truce may not be possible but I still hope that it is. The same message goes out to Susan Davis and Brachina and anyone else who is on the other side of that difficult and painful debate.
Thu, 2014-06-19 14:42
#21
Thx, pondering. It is also a lot less work to do simple quotes, and the [/quotes] codes do not get lost and messed up which has caused a lot of issues.
We are not at loggerheads over a 'life and death' topic, as prostitution is not life or death, but simple choice and factions who want to deny women the freedom to choose. So while I did a side step there, it is still on topic of women's rights.
Women's rights include things that women want to do, whatever they are, that others do not want them to choose to do after all.
I mention the make up thing because megan murphy did a blog post mocking men who took selfies in makeup for on a cancer donations fundraiser site, while on the flip side seemed to be mocking women who were taking selfies (for the same issue) without makeup.