Libertarianism, Race and Gender issues
The issues of race and gender seem to have blown up here at Gonzo Times. This has not been without resistance. The article I posted in October specifically seems to be getting a lot of attention. I have ran into the classic colorblind concepts in response to much of what was written. I thought to myself that I would lay off the subject a while and get to something more along the lines of economics or warfare but then I realized that the amount of resistance to discussing such concepts seems to be an indicator that there is a great deal that needs to be said, and that the problem is real.
We must not fool ourselves into thinking that they are issues we are immune to. I asked why certain people groups are less dominant in the libertarian and anarchist circles. This was often met with defense of what is. The libertarians seem to take an extremely right wing stance on the subject. They regurgitate the Rush Limbaugh take on racism. They wonder why people call them racist. If we are unwilling to discuss the issues how are we any different from the right wing who also refuses to discuss the issues?
The ‘race card’ ‘race baiting’ and other common right wing catch phrases seem to be brought up. Some of this is from an individuals desire to not discuss a problem and some of it is just from people who do not see the problems. Just about any people group is and can be ethnocentric. We are not immune to this. Looking outside and hearing others will help us to break free from this. We don’t see where our problems lie, but it is easy to point out the flaws in others. One of the things that I have done in Gonzo Times is to challenge my beliefs. This has led to much of the writing you read on the site.
Why is it that when the issue of gender is brought up so many libertarians are upset? I see few libertarian publications addressing the issues, they are too busy with their heads in economics as the end all answer to every problem. Are race or gender issues really something that will be solved with economics? If you believe such then you really are clinging to a Utopian belief of libertarianism. Some are offended and call me a communist. Some jump to the conclusion that the only answer is the state. I will say now that the absence of a state is not the answer to racism or sexism. I will also state that currently under the state we see proof that the answer is not the state. It has not been eliminated under the state or outside of the state. When we present real workable solutions to these issues outside of the state maybe then the label of racist and sexist might fall away. As long as the issues are considered non-issues and we look away the labels will stick.
This article is not about racism or sexism specifically but the reaction of the libertarian and some anarchists when the issues are brought up. These are issues deeply ingrained in society and our perspectives of what is and should be. It is in our entertainment, news, media and in our language. I am not implying or stating that libertarians are racist. I am not saying that all white men are racist. I am however stating that there are some reactions to race and gender issues when I bring them up here and other places from libertarians that are counter productive.
I am often attacked or quickly brushed aside when I bring up the issues. The issues of race and gender are met with hostility by many within libertarian circles. Shall these issues continue to go under our radar? The right wing tends to wish them away and pretend there is no issue of race or gender. They often point to the symptoms of the problem as the justification of the problem. Those who cling to the state for an answer and do not wish the state to address this issue I ask why is it you look to the state for justice in other areas of injustice but not this one?
We tend to quickly address issues pertaining to race and gender with one word solutions. For those who are facing such issues one word is not sufficient. Our movement should be listening to those who have been impacted by these problems. The idea that we are just going to accept racism is absurd. The injustices of racism and sexism are the issues we should speak out against. We do not accept the injustice of rape, theft or murder. Why then should we accept these? If this is a movement that embraces oppression then I want nothing to do with it. I would rather join the ranks of the womanists.
Often the issues that come up I do not think are complete racism. They often may come from people with truly good intentions not seeing the barriers that are being put up. This barrier is often one of ethnocentrism. This is not unique to the white man any more than it is exclusive to other people groups. This is one that can throw up barriers and often leads to being blind of the issues that impact another. How myopic is your perspective? I’m certain that mine can be at times but the problem is that we do not see our own blind spots easily.
Many right libertarians spend a great deal of time reading Austrian theories and delving into economic discussions only to get the same redundant sound bytes from Rachel Maddow fans in response. The frustration is there that people have not taken the time to learn about an issue or to truly comprehend what it is you are saying or where you claim the problems lie. They just come back with phrases that they hear recited daily in the news. The issue of race is often met with the same wall. Countless intellectuals have studied these issues and some libertarians almost steal the right wing responses to these issues they have not taken the time to research or learn about. Many libertarians can often become the sound bite replay they so often are frustrated with.
There are libertarians who have addressed these issues. There is often a strong movement towards patriarchal apologetics that seems to attract many. I would dare say that many who I know either see it as a non-issue or are afraid to speak out on this topic for fear of the reactions they will receive. I have met a hostile reception on many occasions in addressing these issues. Then there are those who have also embraced it with open arms or at least without taking a defense. Taking a defense when bringing up certain disparities is indicative of a problem that may be laying under the surface here.
You must choose to deny the issues or confront them. They will not go away and we will not be able to move forward until we have confronted them. The denial will not homogenize society. It will only create greater rifts and support oppressive social norms.
I predict that my calling this subject out will be met with quick uncritical dismissals. I will be called a ‘communist’ or be said to be ‘playing the race card’. These are the common reactions. I also suspect that many will deny that any issues of race or gender exist. I hope that people will open dialogue and seriously begin to discuss issues or race and gender instead of continuing to look the other way.
I want to be clear that many libertarians have done so and are not guilty of trying to quiet the discussion. Many have left insightful comments and have not thrown up a defensive wall when these issues come up. I was not planning on writing on race or gender this week. It just so happened that the beginning of the week it was a topic that many writers here brought up by coincidence. I had issues of the EPA and government footing the bill for corporate PR to discuss, but those took a back seat after the strong reactions I got from what was brought up earlier this week. At first I just considered avoiding race issues but then realized that I was caving and allowing this issue to be shut down. I can not let that happen.
3:51 pm
Count me on the side of the libertarians concerned with racism and sexism.This is another reason I’ve come to reject anarcho-capitalism and mainstream libertarianism and I’ve repeatedly brought the issue up with them.
3:57 pm
I think that is why you have become one of my favorite libertarian writers.
5:15 pm
Thanks man.I’m grateful for this opportunity to put my views out there and maybe inspire some thinking.I’d love if this was my job.Hopefully it leads on to other things for me
5:33 pm
After reading Walter Blocks newest book in defense of the klan & slavery you will go on to counter his every argument with your book in defense of liberty…
6:38 pm
My book?
3:23 pm
Could one of yinz link to Scott F’s website/writings?
3:32 pm
Scott Writes here often, in fact there is a link to his site on the side bar.
5:52 pm
Generally speaking, and this is general, libertarians are worse than any other political group on racial and gender issues. Progressives can tend towards extremes that exacerbate the issue or create other problems, while conservatives are just plain wrong much of the time but at least both groups confront it. Libertarians are one of the few political groups that, whenever race or gender comes up, act like the other party is just being silly for bringing it up.
7:34 pm
Feminism is essentially Big Brother with a vagina. There are several Libertarians and Anarchists who read your Twitter feed who are shocked you don’t get this.
Feminism is not compatible with libertarianism or anarchism in the slightest. Feminism supports:
1. Massive government-enforced wealth redistribution from productive individuals in the private sector to female-dominated bureaucracy in the public sector.
2. The Violence Against Women Act, which creates female-only privilege in the eyes of Law Enforcement despite that men and women commit domestic violence at roughly the same rates. And men are far more likely to be victims of violence in general.
3. Rape Shield laws, which deny the accused the fundamental right of confronting their accuser.
4. An ever-growing police state, to “protect” women from perceived threats.
5. A LONG association with Marxist class warfare, going back to its origins.
6. Militarist intervention in Arab nations to “protect women.”
7. Lesser prison sentences for women committing the same crimes as men.
8. Family courts that rip children from fathers for fun and profit.
9. Child support enforcement laws which deny men affected of several of their constitutional rights.
10. Opposing the prosecution of false rape accusers, despite that their accusation essentially ruins the life of the accused.
The list goes on and on.
As a Libertarian, I vocally defend the individual rights of men and women, regardless of their race color or creed. And that is also why I oppose Feminism.
3:51 pm
Feminism doesn’t “support” anything any more than libertarianism or anarchism does. Only individuals support the positions you list, and many self-labelled feminists oppose every item on your list. To examine anarchism in your collectivised manner could result in the following. Anarchism supports:
1. The assassination of political, corporate and religious leaders.
2. The expropriation and/or violent destruction of all private capital.
3. The execution and expropriation of landholders.
4. The reduction of the Earth’s population to 6 to 10 million people.
5. Forced industrial collectivization.
The tactic of collectivizing an “ism” and then arguing against a hand-picked subset of the aggregated positions is simply a tactic to end discussion. If person X doesn’t want to consider libertarianism, they just say, “libertarians are racist”; anarchism: “It would just be a war of all against all,”; feminism: “Women would get to imprison whoever they want.”
Instead of instantly moving to shut down discussion of any topic, it behooves all of us to focus on listen to and exploring what the individual who is raising the issue is actually trying to say.
3:53 pm
Well said.
5:57 pm
Indeed! Communes exist, but they are not microcosm’s of Stalins Russia, much to the chagrin of statists on the left and right. As has been said before, any idea no matter how righteous becomes an evil shade of itself upon being exposed to the un-earned power of the state and its coercive capabilities.
3:51 pm
Feminism doesn’t “support” anything any more than libertarianism or anarchism does. Only individuals support the positions you list, and many self-labelled feminists oppose every item on your list. To examine anarchism in your collectivised manner could result in the following. Anarchism supports:
1. The assassination of political, corporate and religious leaders.
2. The expropriation and/or violent destruction of all private capital.
3. The execution and expropriation of landholders.
4. The reduction of the Earth’s population to 6 to 10 million people.
5. Forced industrial collectivization.
The tactic of collectivizing an “ism” and then arguing against a hand-picked subset of the aggregated positions is simply a tactic to end discussion. If person X doesn’t want to consider libertarianism, they just say, “libertarians are racist”; anarchism: “It would just be a war of all against all,”; feminism: “Women would get to imprison whoever they want.”
Instead of instantly moving to shut down discussion of any topic, it behooves all of us to focus on listen to and exploring what the individual who is raising the issue is actually trying to say.
4:26 pm
Feminism is a philosophy of freedom.It’s a belief that women deserve the same good treatment as men and have the same freedoms too.There are (like Tucker’s two kinds of Socialism) two branches of feminism(though it could be questioned whether one branch is really feminism or just disguised patriarchy) one branch is statist.The other is anarchist ,with anarchism having a long association with feminism since both share the same goals of liberation hence Anarcha-Feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism
Important to point out is that feminism is not (necessarily), and I’d say should not, be Anti-male.It’s critical of female domination which is OFTEN perpetuated by men but also may be by females too.It should be understood that gender roles and the like, can also harm men too.No one is seriously denying men are harmed but it is not systematic or organized as patriarchy is.
Now lets look at your claims.
1.There’s at least two problems with this claim.Females are in the minority in the public sector and no feminist, I know has ever argued for this position.
4. I don’t see women marching for statist protection in the street.Furthermore your point is moot, since when that is done it’s really just playing up to sexism to prop up statism by implying women are weak and defenseless by nature.
5. This may be true at times.But there has always been feminists who are not marxists or not interested in marxist theory e.g. Wendy Mcelroy.
6. This point is a bit embarrassing to hear from a libertarian.All that really needs to be said is that this is one of MANY justifactory lies.Furthermore if you knew enough about this, you would know the occupiers are working with extremists and culturally conservative groups perpetuating patriarchy and female submission.
You cannot defend the rights of men and women and yet oppose feminism.Or maybe it’s the cultural politics of it you oppose? then you show your culturally conservative slant and that is a whole other discussion.
5:03 pm
Feminism, like other ideologies, attempts to perpetuate its model onto the target demographic it purports to represent regardless of how individuals within that demographic feel. The problem with feminism, like other ideologies, is that it presumes a knowledge of what women and men want and how to go about achieving that end. Most feminists I’ve ever met are among the most confused individuals I’ve ever encountered. There are a number of housewives and mothers who like being housewives and mothers, and insofar as they’ve chosen this course for themselves by their own actions, they should be allowed to continue regardless of the patriarchal implications.
What the hell is so wrong with patriarchy, anyway? People assume that dominance is wrong, but if you like being dominated, why shouldn’t you be able to cede control? I’m a fan of individual choice and consequence. And therein lies the problem: I am bound by the consequences of my choices, and this necessarily constricts freedom.
Rather than seeing this as a logical outcome of freedom, feminists and others attempt to endlessly carve out infinite and unending choice to evade consequence: the choice to abort, the choice to default, the choice to abdicate personal responsibility for one’s actions to avoid the consequences of free choice. All of this, wrapped up in the tired language and semantics of dominant/submissive or oppressor/oppressed constructs, and for what? To justify freedom from the consequences of freedom.
Is oppression real? Yes. But how much of oppression lies within the freely made choices of individuals to pursue courses that result in a limitation of choice, whether through educational choices or financial choices and yes, even moral and ethical choices.
What no one wants to acknowledge is that much of the oppression in this world results from individuals pigeonholing themselves through their own free agency. No one makes women choose to date abusive men or pursue relationships with men who are misogynistic on their face. A good many women choose those courses of their own volition, but any garden variety feminist will blame upbringing and societal norms as opposed to the individual making the immediate choice.
The dichotomies that emerge are crude attempts to cast the debate in black and white extremes. There’s fair and unfair, ignorant and enlightened, on and on and on…all to avoid the simple reality that we are each the keeper of our own souls, and we choose to live on our feet rather than dying on our knees. I have a background of sexual and physical abuse, but I grew up and I doubt anyone who knows me would call me anybody’s victim. I made a choice, and choices have the power to free and to enslave.
Liberty, empowerment…subjugation and weakness, these are choices we make.
9:24 pm
” There are a number of housewives and mothers who like being housewives and mothers, and insofar as they’ve chosen this course for themselves by their own actions,”
If they’ve chosen it knowing of patriarchy,knowing gender roles are socially constructed and not natural or inevitable then there’s no problem.No one’s saying women must all go out and work etc.That would just be a different gender role of course.
“What the hell is so wrong with patriarchy, anyway?”
It’s immoral.
” but if you like being dominated, ”
The problem you miss here simplistically is that often such individuals do not see the domination occuring and from that have no ability to chose to remove themself from such circumstances.
” I am bound by the consequences of my choices, and this necessarily constricts freedom. ”
I don’t know what your getting at.
“Rather than seeing this as a logical outcome of freedom, feminists and others attempt to endlessly carve out infinite and unending choice to evade consequence: the choice to abort, the choice to default, the choice to abdicate personal responsibility for one’s actions to avoid the consequences of free choice.”
again,what are you getting at?
” All of this, wrapped up in the tired language and semantics of dominant/submissive or oppressor/oppressed constructs,”
If your implying these are false then there’s not much else I can say to you.If you can’t see this them I’m afraid you may have bought into the paradigms.
” To justify freedom from the consequences of freedom. ”
You seem to be implying feminism results in irresponsibility.
“No one makes women choose to date abusive men or pursue relationships with men who are misogynistic on their face.”
As if all that matters is consent.Voluntaryism is necessary but not sufficient for moral relationships.That’s why I and others are not non left libertarians because libertarianism is more than this.We are thick in that other concerns matter equally.
” A good many women choose those courses of their own volition,”
Can we be so sure?
” but any garden variety feminist will blame upbringing and societal norms as opposed to the individual making the immediate choice. ”
To deny these exist would be absurd.No one is denying free will but neither is social context irrelevant.
The dichotomies that emerge are crude attempts to cast the debate in black and white extremes. There’s fair and unfair, ignorant and enlightened, on and on and on…all to avoid the simple reality that we are each the keeper of our own souls, and we choose to live on our feet rather than dying on our knees. I have a background of sexual and physical abuse, but I grew up and I doubt anyone who knows me would call me anybody’s victim. I made a choice, and choices have the power to free and to enslave.
Liberty, empowerment…subjugation and weakness, these are choices we make
6:48 pm
Yet in essence, feminists want to carve out a dominant position for social context as though everything else is irrelevant. And what empirical basis do you have for asserting that gender roles are socially constructed rather than biological? I didn’t worry about whether or not my shoes were “coot” as my sister did when were children. I love how feminists believe that an article or two written by ideologues on some college or university faculty obviates personal experience as instruction, or basic common sense borne out of long observation.
My nephew is clearly not a girl. The fact that he plays with Barbie dolls is less an indicator of his struggle against society’s oppressive attempts to make him play with a GI Joe. Regardless of the doll or figurine, he plays the same way: bashing Malibu Barbie and her friends together, slamming them against his sister’s dollhouse or his Tonka trucks. Lest you believe that this is in an indicator of misogyny on the part of a four year old, I would also advise you that he does the same thing with his GI Joe or WWE figures.
He’s dragged an old purse around before, but it was full of Matchbox cars and Hot Wheels. The problem with feminists is that they can never accept anything at face value or believe in the simplest possible explanation. No, there are always layers of social critiquing to do, analyses that must be constructed to get to the “real” truth, when in fact, all that’s occurring is a boy being a boy and a girl being a girl. Are there exceptions? Yes.
I grew up with a boy named Phillip who was obviously effeminate from a young age. His father was a bivocational minister and carpenter. His mother was a housewife and piano teacher. No one imposed gender roles on Phillip, because Phillip was simply…Phillip. He defied any attempt to teach him how to throw a ball or fit gender norms. He threw like a girl, and most of us came to accept the fact that Phillip wasn’t going to picked first for any team sport. That didn’t mean that Phillip was less of a man or less of human being. It just meant that he was Phillip. I’m sure there were times when Phillip faced harassment and juvenile sniggering, but there isn’t a single person on this thread who hasn’t faced the same at one point or another. It’s a rite of passage, not a grand conspiracy to put us all in cookie-cutter molds.
What fresh shit is this that says women have to be educated in patriarchy’s existence or your concept of gender roles before they can express or enter into informed consent? By the time you get through indoctrinating women in the idea that patriarchy is immoral, you’ll accomplish the same social pressuring and influencing you accuse the existing arbiters of perpetuating. The biggest issue you have isn’t that gender norms and roles are influenced on some level; it’s that you aren’t the one doing the influencing.
In many ways, you are a statist who resents the existing state while coveting that state’s influence and power for yourself and your ideological paradigms. Yes, you must educate the unwashed masses of women who ignorantly cling to their romantic notions of patriarchy, or who lack any real knowledge of patriarchy and the Grand Council’s desire to subjugate them into lives of subordinate and gender oppression! The smell of condescension is overpowering.
3:51 pm
Thank you for your well-argued comment. Cheers.
3:48 pm
Scott, respectfully… I’m not even sure you read what you just wrote to me.
Out of one side of your mouth, you’re broadbrushing me as treating Feminism as a like-minded collective and then you’re turning around and treating Feminism as a like-minded collective about “equality for everyone.” Then, you’re broadbrushing again with a false dichotomy, i.e. “you cannot defend the rights of men and women and yet oppose feminism.” And you make that claim without refuting the majority of my arguments (rape shield laws, VAWA, special treatment in courts, family courts) as to why Feminism is Statism. Furthermore, the refutations that are there are fallacious. The president of the N.O.W. gloated earlier this year that women are the primary beneficiaries of jobs and aid from the public sector. You do not refute my arguments on unfair treatment against men by the police and the courts (which feminism supports) yet you claim feminism doesn’t call for unfair police state tactics. As debate, it’s fail.
Feminism is not about equality for men and women. Feminism is about supremacy and privilege for women. If the above examples are not enough to prove my point, consider this.
1. The genital mutilation of boys (circumcision) is condoned and even vocally supported by Feminists touting debunked claims about it lessening spread of disease. Circumcision is done improperly millions of times every year, causing damage to the boy’s urethra. (I suffer from this.) Furthermore, removing the foreskin reduces a great deal of the physical satisfaction a man can experience from intercourse. Feminists across the country smile and nod as millions of boys are symbolically castrated, yet imagine the collective nuclear freakout from Feminists if the same was done to girls. Feminism = Supremacy for women.
2. Feminists scream and holler on a daily basis about female reproductive rights, yet they deny that men have any reproductive rights at all. A woman can: Tell her lover she is on birth control, when she isnt. Poke holes in condoms. Gather sperm from used condoms, and impregnate herself with it. Gather sperm in her mouth from oral sex, and impregnate herself with it. In all cases, if conception results, the man becomes liable for child support. On the other hand, women can get an abortion, offer baby for adoption, drop a baby off at a hospital and walk away, keep the baby. The father has NO CHOICE in any of these circumstances. Feminists also defend the rights of women to defraud and cuckold their spouses, and have a history of opposing paternity testing. Feminism = Supremacy for women.
I am not even scratching the surface on Female Privilege won for them by feminists. Yet with the above examples, we show that Feminism has a really, really poor track record of defending equality for men, and in most cases works actively against it. But you still maintain I’m the one against equality because I’m against feminism.
Scott, it is your right to support Feminism if you wish. I only hope you do a little more critical thinking on this issue, before you find yourself under a stillettoed heel someday.
4:02 pm
You seem to be operating off of biases of feminist philosophies not actual feminist philosophy. Feminism is about equality of gender not dominance of one over the other.
Perhaps you should read a bit of what feminists actually write or promote. Start with Feminism is For everybody.
9:13 pm
I think I may know the reason that many libertarians (which I count myself among in general, although I don’t know my particular “flavor”) don’t really the problem of racism and/or sexism with respect to their political philosophies.
In general the view is that these are not issues that should be addressed in a political framework (by the state or otherwise). Therefore, there is really nothing to be said on the topic as any attempt to address the issue through a centralized state or even a voluntary anarchistic society is seen as only marginally effective at best and creating the opposite problem (e.g. “protected classes”) at worst.
Certainly sexism and racism haven’t disappeared from the face of the planet (or even this country necessarily). However, I think it would be consistent w/ the libertarian perspective to say that, while such prejudices are widely accepted as reprehensible and problematic, they are not in and of themselves “criminal” and again not something suitable to be addressed by the state. One could harbor bigoted attitudes (i.e. thoughts) and yet break no standing law (i.e. commit an unlawful act).
Also, I think some may further see the more aggressive attempts the attempts to “legislate away” sexism and racism (and other similar baseless prejudices) as too analogous to thought control/social engineering (albeit a rather soft one with benevolent intentions) and just the idea of laws based on one’s motivations and/or personal beliefs (however misguided) come across as off-putting. This “criminalization” of thought is thus seen as the slippery slope to a 1984-esque regime.
The only direct example I can think of at the moment is hate crime legislation. While there is no doubt morally repugnant that one would commit acts of violence against another solely (or even in part) due to their race, sex, religion, etc., the libertarian view (as far as I can tell) is that laws should only be concerned with the act itself and, in circumstances such as murder, the level of willful intent displayed towards committing that act and not what bigoted thoughts or feelings the accused had concerning the victim.
2:54 am
I understand your concerns PunkJohnyCash. I’ve been always thinking about it too. I have asked myself more than once, what should Libertarians do about racism? Specially in a stateless society (hypothetically speaking obviously).
Well, in a stateless society racism would not be a crime. In a stateless society property rights, and free speech play a vital part on it. So what can we do to solve racism in a pacific way? The answer is to use property rights, and free speech. We know that a stateless society would not be perfect(utopia). People would not hold their hands, make a big circle, and sing peace songs. We would still encounter problems such as racism and many more. What we cannot do however is to ban racism (to force people to NOT be racists). That would obviously be a total contradiction to our ideology. What we can do is teach that racism is wrong. That in the case, if a restaurant does not accept people of X race. Then, we must do our best to get the other restaurants to accept everyone, or maybe even start our own. The pacific solutions in a stateless society are endless. As long as we respect people’s freedom of speech, and property. And so as they obviously respect ours.
I think every Libertarian, or at least most have a good heart. Libertarians want freedom for EVERY HUMAN BEING. And most importantly Libertarians accept everyone as equal. But we should also not fall in the mistake, that racists wouldn’t take part in a stateless society. Rather we should respect their liberty , and counterattack them with liberty.
6:08 pm
Good video I’ve found regarding the race issue.
1:10 pm
If you’re stating that, in a market sense, discrimination shouldn’t exist, I’m not sure exactly you answer your own question without statist interference.
1:19 pm
Why do so many go directly to state in these issues? I have already addressed stateless approaches to many issues in gender and race on this site. It is the unwillingness to discuss the symptoms of the problems and look for solutions that I am attempting to bring to light.
5:07 pm
The “issues” of race and gender are really non-issues. . . except from a statist or wannabe-statist point of view.
What you erroneously call issues are nothing more than the highest of Evolutionary Priorities – Survival of the Species.
Men are physically larger and stronger than women, for the most part – the man who could protect his women from predators, and/or was the better hunter, was more likely to father the next generation; the woman who placed herself under his protection was more likely to survive to bear children – thus guaranteeing continuation.
“Abuse” is a statist creation, brought about mostly by economic meddling which forces a man to work overtime or take a second (or even third) job to support his family.
Add to this, women who can’t keep their mouths shut, who use their words as surrogate baseball bats to bludgeon their man into submission; or women who stand in doorways to prevent the man from leaving the room/house so as to DE-escalate (caused mainly by the rise of “Feminism,” another statist invention). . . they kind of deserve what they get.
Stress someone enough, and eventually they’ll break.
The Race non-issue works in similar ways – the “alien” people from across the veldt can and will cause shortages of food, water, and shelter, if they expand their range into the range of other humans. Starvation isn’t exactly a good way to guarantee continuation.
Denying these Evolutionary factors is disingenuous at best; intentional ignorance and State-Worship covers the rest.
There are hundreds of thousands of years of Evolutionary Pressures at work here – it isn’t going to change anytime soon – no matter how badly you want it, no matter how much time and money you throw at “educating” people. . .
7:38 pm
Dude, I’m an anarchist so I’m all about blaming the gov. But it’s not the governments fault you beat your wife. You should seek professional help. Are you serious?
11:13 pm
I love it when people project their own sickness onto others. . . you’ll be in much better shape if you quit doing it and admit you have a problem – the first step toward getting it fixed.
Anyone who has spent more than 2 minutes looking into it will say exactly what I did – it isn’t rocket science after all. . .
Keep wishing for things to change overnight, though – it’s almost as cute as when little kids still believe in the Tooth Fairy.
12:16 pm
FYI, I did think about this for . . . about 3 minutes. I’ve taken the liberty of reposting a segment of your quote. Paraphrasing from the perspective of a cop discussing assaulting a citizen:
“Add to this, civilians who can’t keep their mouths shut, who use their words to bludgeon law officers . . . they kind of deserve what they get. Stress a cop enough, and eventually they’ll break.”
Does this seem like a reasonable defense of assaulting a person to you? If not, why is your example different? If so, well . . . if so, then nevermind.
4:33 pm
Good try. . . not good enough, but I applaud your effort. Nice comparison of apples and oranges, you’re well on your way to being a proficient seller of produce.
Your using a class of people almost exclusively populated by Sociopaths/Psychopaths as an example makes you part of the problem – unable or unwilling to make a valid point.
1:16 am
My first time reading something from the gonzo site, and it seems a bit of an echo chamber at first glance. Much of the enlightenment liberalism that stands as the foundation of moder libertarianism deals directly with racial equality. Much ink has been devoted to these topics from a number of libertarian thinkers, both old and new. So perhaps the dearth is with your readers and commenters, and grounded in a lack of knowledge of about the universe you are critiquing.
1:40 am
I do think it is less the philosophies and more individuals in the milieu.
4:39 pm
Interestingly enough. . . I found, just this morning, an article verifying exactly what I said. . .
http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.897
I’ll even repost the paragraph, in case you miss it, intentionally or otherwise, while reading or failing to read as it might teach you something. . .
“Lionel Tiger, an emeritus anthropology professor at Rutgers University, is a driving force. He argues that the biological differences between “male and female organisms” are inherent and significant. Moreover, he contends there is an “enormous relation” between biology and behavior. In short, Male Studies start with the premise that gender is biologically based even if manifestations of it are deeply influenced by culture.”
OOOoooh. . . too bad. . . Biology trumps Ideology. . . Gee. . . who’d'a ever thunk it?
9:33 pm
As a Feminist activist, I have to say I am shocked by how many commenters on this blog have so little knowledge of Feminism as a political ideology. I’d expect this kind of ignorance from the standard trolls on any newspaper website, but from supposedly informed, rational and intelligent political activists/thinkers, I’m truly shocked.
As has been said already, Feminism is about equality for men and women. Nothing more, or less.
The same as any other ideology, there are differing views on how we are to go about achieving this equality. There are many different branches of Feminism – but I was always taught, and have continued to believe that this is more or less the case, that there are three main types of Feminism: Liberal Feminism, Socialist-Feminism, and Radical Feminism.
Liberal Feminism insists that the oppression of women will be resolved when women have legal equality – the issue is merely a matter of enforcing legal equality (this is, I’m sure, the brand of Feminism which libertarians and anarchists have the most problem with, and it is, of course, statist).
Socialist Feminism believes that the problems of the patriarchy come from Capitalism, and when the workers revolt, the patriarchy will be smashed, along with Capitalism.
Radical Feminists generally believe that the issues of the Patriarchy are both personal AND political – that is, the oppression of women will not be undone just by political means, but also by a revolution of sorts in the private sphere – education of women’s issues and the oppression of the patriarchy, along with legal equality and legal provisions for equality in the public sphere will create the equality that Feminists are fighting for.
As for a number of comments (not just on this post, but on others across this blog – I’ll try to only post on one article, to save myself cross-posting and pissing anyone off) which have quoted a few Feminist thinkers and attempted to demonstrate that all Feminists think exactly the same as them (quoting from the SCUM manifesto, etc.) – try and do some reading. Try and read some things that perhaps *challenge* your perceptions of an ideology or belief, don’t just seek out those which support your ignorant assumptions about an ideology.
As with any ideology, there are disagreements over how we are to achieve the aim that we all agree upon – and there are some people who go off on a completely different line to everyone else. The movement can’t stop certain people from calling themselves Feminists, just be aware that not every Feminist will necessarily agree with everything that another Feminist says.
Stop misrepresentin’ us, yeah?