Can conservatives and libertarians be feminists?
| May 13th, 2005I have trouble accepting the idea of a right-wing feminist.
Partly that’s because most of the examples I’ve come across - the IWF, Christina Hoff Sommers and ifeminism.com, for example - are so discouraging. It seems to me that to be a feminist, one ought be in favor of feminism. Therefore, it’s difficult for me to accept that these “right-wing feminists” - none of whom ever take the feminist side in current controversies, and all of whom make their livings doing nothing but slamming feminism - are feminists.
But examples aside (after all, that’s just anecdotal evidence), as a matter of theory I think right-wing politics and feminism are fundamentally in conflict.
As I understand it (and speaking in sweeping generalizations), there are two dominant brands of right-wingers in the US today: social conservatives and libertarians. Social conservatism is pretty obviously incompatible with feminism: social conservatives are anti-abortion, anti-lesbian, anti-women-in-the-workplace. Basically, they’re anti-feminist.
Libertarianism is on the surface more compatible with feminism. Libertarians disapprove of sexist discrimination, believe in equal legal rights for lesbians (and gay men), and usually don’t think it’s the government’s proper role to enforce childbirth on unwilling women.
But there’s more to feminism than disapproving of sexism and keeping abortion legal. There’s a huge variety of feminisms out there, but there are a couple of things virtually all feminists believe. One is that feminists can, by taking collective action, change society in ways that improves the status of women-as-a-whole. Towards this end, feminists have worked collectively for battered women’s shelters (and have sometimes lobbied for government funding), rape crisis lines (ditto), anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, pay equity, state-funded day care, the family leave act, a higher minimum wage, government-funded research on violence against women, and so on.
But libertarianism opposes most collective action: for libertarians, everything is about the individual. Strict libertarianism opposes laws against discrimination; if an individual business owner wants to discriminate, he should have that freedom, because after all it’s his business and his money. Similarly, pay equity, affirmative action, minimum wage and family leave are bad, because government shouldn’t tell business owners what to do. Rape crisis lines and battered women’s shelters should be provided by private charity and markets, not by tax dollars “taken at gunpoint.” And so on, and so on.
Of course, I’m not saying that no feminist can disagree with welfare, or affirmative action, or family leave, or whatever. Feminists disagree on things like this all the time. But can someone be against virtually every policy that might help women and still be a feminist? After all, it’s not just that libertarians want to prevent new laws to help women: libertarians also want to repeal most of the current laws that help women.
Getting rid of Social Security would hurt women more than men; getting rid of the minimum wage would hurt women more than men (because more women are minimum-wage workers); getting rid of anti-discrimination laws would hurt women more; I could go on with examples like these all day. All these policies would hurt women’s interests, and all of them are favored by libertarians. If virtually all the policies a person favors would hurt women’s interests, doesn’t that make it a contradiction to call that person a feminist?
So that’s why I think libertarianism is contrary to feminism. Does that mean that I think libertarians can’t be feminists? No, not really. I think there’s a bad contradiction there, but people deal with contradictions in their lives all the time, after all. But I’m skeptical that such a feminist will ever create any meaningful change for gender justice.
There’s one other reason I think it’s unlikely that any coherent philosophy could be both right-wing and feminist. Feminism’s mandate is justice, and especially justice for women. But fighting for “justice” for women isn’t meaningful if it only applies to some women. Consider the feminist principle that “all women must have the freedom to choose abortion.” If we’re serious about that principle, it’s not enough that abortion remain legal; it also has to be meaningfully available to all women. That means feminism has to concern itself at least partly with class justice - if poor women can’t afford abortions, then poor women lack the freedom to choose abortion.
Similar arguments could be made about why feminism has to not only consider gender justice, but also the places where gender justice “intersects” with racial justice, economic justice, justice for lesbians, and so on. Certainly, there are many individual right-wingers who are personally anti-racist, concerned with the plight of the poor, and so on. But on the whole, it is the left which is fighting for social justice on all these fronts; and insofar as feminism has to be concerned with social justice for all women (and not just white middle-class first-world ablebodied heterosexual women), it’s more natural for feminism to ally with the left than with the right.
(By the way, I’d make a similar argument that to be consistent, all non-feminist social justice groups must be concerned with gender justice; i.e., just as feminism without concern for economic justice is incomplete, socialism without concern for gender justice is incomplete.)
May 13th, 2005 at 2:14 am
Of course you *CAN* start a collective in a libertarian state, if you wish. It’s well known that group effort can often be more effective for its participants than working inidividual-by-individual. (Of course “forgetting” this aspect of libertarianism is an endless source of strawmen.)
This comment was written by Mikko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:33 am
I wouldn’t call myself a libertarian now, but I would have when I was in college, so I will try to defend them from that perspective.
In the example of pay discrimination, libertarians might argue that people shouldn’t discriminate by sex, but that this is a cultural problem and not a problem that government can really solve. In a way, they have a point. How do we really know how helpful discrimination laws have been? Sure, the wage gap has closed somewhat, but there have also been steady cultural change in the way we view women and their roles. Even more to the point is that the wage gap has not completely closed, in spite of laws. Deep cultural change will probably be the only way that people will really come around (meanwhile, they will try to circumvent the existing laws).
Libertarians might argue that if governments provided paid leave for mothers, it would create hardship for business owners who then have to find a replacement (especially troublesome if she quits altogether at the end of her leave). Even for someone who is not a sexist, the simple desire to keep one’s business afloat might discourage them from hiring women of childbearing age. In the worst case scenario, it would reinforce sexist assumptions.
The question I have (and right now, I don’t know the answer to it) would be whether or not the wage gap exists to the same extent in the countries that provide paid maternity leave. Also, how much of a “glass ceiling” is there? I’ve heard varying reports, and I don’t know which to believe.
A Brazilian friend of mine said that when he lived there, there was a policy in place that said businesses had to pay for the (very long) maternity leave. (I think it might have been 6 months!) As one might expect, many businesses (especially small businesses) tried to hire as few women as possible. That *can’t* be a good outcome, so a libertarian solution would clearly be better here.
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 6:10 am
Being a feminist is not just about being concerned over issues such as racism and the plight of the poor or even social justice. It is about how you approach those issues. Feminism is an interpretation of multiple realities, race, gender, sexuality, economic status, personal ability and so on and their relationship to ideologies of white supremacy and male superiority. Thus there are many “feminisms”, ‘liberal feminism’ ‘Black feminism’, ‘lesbian feminism’ ‘radical feminism’, ‘progressive feminism’ and so on. Each “feminism” interprets in different ways and each employs a set of “core themes” which guide that interpretation.
Your discussion on whether “conservatives and libertarians can be feminist” talks as if we are all white. For example you state that “getting rid of social security would hurt women more than men (because more women are minimum wage earners)” . Whereas an interpretation of feminism that as you say ” intersects race and gender” for example, would have recognised that Black women face multiple oppressions of race, gender and class and would be primary loosers in any reduction in social security.
This comment was written by owukori.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 6:24 am
Barbara, anti-discrimination laws have been noticeably effective for women in the trades. Title IX opened up the apprenticeship programs to women in 1972. I was in kindergarten then. I saw women working on the larger construction and road projects in the St. Louis area when I was a child. The anti-discrimination laws paved the way for that cultural change. As an adult journeyman, I went back to that area to work and met some of those early women “pioneers” (”Pioneering” is the title of another of Susan Eisenberg’s books, this time of poetry—mostly reflecting jobsite subjects and images). Maaannnn, the stories they could tell.
One woman in particular stood out to me. She was an Operating Engineer. She was a young mother of two whose husband had left her. She was on welfare, and told me about being demoralized, standing on line at the welfare office in East St. Louis. At that time, there was more of a push to get welfare mothers in the trades, as it was a high-paying job that could support a family, yet didn’t require college. She jumped at the chance. The hostility was unreal. We talked quite a bit. She’s probably retired now.
There is more acceptance of women in the trades now, especially in larger metropolitan areas like St. Louis. St. Louis was an oasis for me. But in general, the glass ceiling still exists for female journeymen. If I could, I’d take you around to the various electrical shops in my city. None of them have a female foreman, let alone general foreman or superindendent. There are no female estimators. No female project managers. Women are not tapped for these positions. We are qualified, but not recognized. The cultural change has not reached these environs yet. And without critical mass, and probably some more “push” from outside, that cultural change will not happen. My work environment will become the oasis for those opposing the cultural change of increased participation for women and others of color. And that isn’t of benefit to anyone.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 6:25 am
I disagree that maternity pay is a factor in businesses - small or otherwise -employing women and offer the UK as evidence.
Here, an employer MUST pay 26 weeks maternity pay (90% of your usual salary for the first 6 weeks then 20 weeks at £106 (c. $200). By 2007, this will be extended to 39 weeks.
However, this is the absolute minimum and most employers offer more than this. My own employer for example provides 52 weeks of maternity leave of which 40 is paid. (18 weeks at full pay plus either a further eleven weeks at full pay or twenty two weeks at half pay (this is not especially unusual).
In the UK, women comprise 43% of employees in the business sector - of which 46% are small (less that 50 employees) businesses.
PS UK maternity pay is one of the lowest in Europe - better only than Greece and Luxemberg.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 6:49 am
So let’s see… the only way for women to be “equal” is via the government enforcing it.
This comment was written by someone.What would happen if your socialist feminist country’s economy suddenly collapsed?
What if it was unable to finance free abortions and state-funded daycare anymore?
What if the market collapsed and suddenly there would be much less job spots?
Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 7:06 am
Was that directed at me?
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 7:09 am
I don’t think all libertarians are opposed to collective action–some anarchist-types more think that government is inherently going to side with the powerful, reinforce existing hierarchies and generally oppress, so the only way to fix sexism is to get rid of the government and replace it with collective action. I disagree, but just another perspective.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Libertarians? Yes, but they won’t allow for government programs of enforced equity, There are libertarian solutions, bu they require collective actions from private citizens on a mass scale (boycots, etc…)
These thingsare theoreticaly possible, but not something I’ve seen happen in real life to the extent that needs to happen to fix things. Of course, neither is government action, so it’s possible a libertarian feminist group might well work.
But they’re not. There are no large scale libertarian feminist organizations organizing pressure groups for wage eqity and contract based solutions. They don’t exist on a large scale. This tells me that either libertarian feminists don’t exist, or just cant be bothered to work on the scale thatthat liberal feminists are operating on.
As for conservatives? Nope. They can’t, by the nature of conservativism, be feminists. Feminism is revolutionary, and conservativism is anti revolutionary. Conservatives are the enemy of feminism. I don’t see a way around this. I guess one could be a conservative in all but feminism, but there’s something disgusting about claiming title to a group identity that thinks you’re less of a person than the ones dominating it. I think conservative ‘feminists’ are probably engaging in mass self delusion if they think that the cconservative movement is anything but a threat to feminism.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 8:10 am
“If we’re serious about that principle, it’s not enough that abortion remain legal; it also has to be meaningfully available to all women. That means feminism has to concern itself at least partly with class justice - if poor women can’t afford abortions, then poor women lack the freedom to choose abortion.”
So let’s be honest then and call yourself pro-abortion, not pro-choice. If you believe that I should be forced to participate in abortion by paying for it with my tax dollars, you are anti-choice and pro-abortion, not truly pro-choice.
Of course, the general argument here is that “Well, the governemnt forces us to pay for all sort of things people don’t agree with, such as the military spending or executions. However, hat is a canard, because people who want higher military spending don’t call themselves “pro-choice” on the military.
The fact of the matter is, you can’t have it both ways. If you think that government should approve of abortion (funding abortion, rather than just permitting it, is giving moral approval), then you are pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Libertarians have a real problem with discrimination. Their adherence to the belief that The Market makes all things right means there shouldn’t be discrimination; any business that hires based on race, say, rather than merit, is going to get its lunch eaten by businesses that only care if their employees do the job well. So any business that discriminates won’t last long.
But in the real world, businesses can and do discriminate and aren’t immediately punished and swallowed up by market forces. This is a problem for the theory. To resolve the contradiction, you have to believe one of two things: 1) Discriminatory companies do hire based on merit–that is, women or blacks or Jews really aren’t the best people for those jobs, therefore there really isn’t discrimination. 2) There is no discrimination, at least not to any significant degree.
I believe you can certainly be a fiscal conservative and a feminist, but fiscal conservatives aren’t in vogue these days.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 9:03 am
I don’t think that it’s impossible for one to be libertarian and feminist; I just think that most libertarians aren’t. Libertarianism, at least as I’ve encountered it in the U.S., is basically only socially liberal on a few issues that are of interest to its target demographic. (Compare the non-positions of the Libertarian Party on abortion and gay marriage with their positions on gun and drug controls.)
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 9:14 am
For anyone interested in further reading on this issue there’s this interesting essay (in progress): Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 9:37 am
My problem with libertarianism is that it rewards those who are already powerful, either financially or by belonging to a numerically powerful majority. There are no checks and balances to address problems that affect numerical minorities, or those without financial power or political influence, even though they may be a numerical majority.
‘Nother words, all libertarianism seems to say to the underdog, is “tough shit!”; be one of us (if you can) or leave. Not Our Problem. Libertarian philosophy is invested with protecting the status quo.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Bingo. They’re quick to offer libertarian critiques of feminism, but I’ve never once seen those groups offer a feminist critique of libertarianism..
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Jeff,
The Libertarian Party in Washington State put SSM front and center on their platform last year.
Absolutely true.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:13 am
The few Libertarians I’ve known fall under the category of “Republicans who smoke pot and want it legalized”. ;-)
And while government does not always solve cultural problems, one only has to look at the civil rights movement and de-segregation to see that although government intervention has not ended racism (far from it), what it has done is made economic application of racism illegal, which was a necessary first step.
This comment was written by pseu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:27 am
I will probably respond further, but for starters, I would like to point everyone to two websites run by libertarians who are *actual* feminists:
http://redneckfeminist.blogspot.com/
http://www.spacefem.com/feministoftheday/
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:28 am
The thing I get most weary of from ifems is their constant misuse of any phrase with the word “victim” in it. See the Vagina Monologues thread for more on that. They don’t care at all if women are powerful. They only want women to shut up about any scenario in which things go badly for us because of sexism. To say out loud, “Hey, things are going badly for me” is a defacto DESIRE on my part for “victimhood” in their eyes.
Really, they smother it all under a sort of moebius strip approach in which we will all be paradoxically empowered if we just learn to shut up about what’s bothering us. However, I don’t honestly think they give two shits if we become empowered. What they care about most is that their patrons be allowed to walk the earth doing as they please without said patrons’ subordinates –us– making the poor babies feel as if they might, just might, not deserve everything they’ve got. That they might, just might, be little more than pathological predators in $500 shoes, not archangels in some quasi-divine meritocracy.
After all, who wants to admit to herself that she’s getting her bread and butter from a predator who routinely gorges himself on the weak ?
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:42 am
“After all, it’s not just that libertarians want to prevent new laws to help women: libertarians also want to repeal most of the current laws that help women.”
OR in your opinion help women…to what end…to whatever end feminists agree with: ie: gender neutral custody where mothers routinely lose their children and/or even getting women registered, probably eventually forced to be drafted when that is reinstated; which explains their fixiation on sports for young girls, etc.,…
I think libertarians are suspicious of collective action from either the right or the left, although I think history has shown us that collection action from the left usually winds up being more dangerous as in communism, national socialism (nazis), feminism…and yes, I have to include feminism within this group as it is one of the isms that is prepared to go to great length to force changes though the power of the state as none of these isms recognize the essential nature of people. A right-wing dictatorship might grab all the power for themselves but rarely go onto these social engineering projects that the left appears to love so much…Thus, all of the isms have to institute great force to achieve thier ends eventually, as most of the people they govern eventually wind up rebelling…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:44 am
First, I think Amp is biased here because of the longstanding but going-rapidly-to-hell allaince between conservatives and libertarians. (Well, right-libertarians, which is whom Amp is obviously refering to.) For example, he writes:
Strict libertarianism opposes laws against discrimination; if an individual business owner wants to discriminate, he should have that freedom, because after all it’s his business and his money. Similarly, pay equity, affirmative action, minimum wage and family leave are bad, because government shouldn’t tell business owners what to do. Rape crisis lines and battered women’s shelters should be provided by private charity and markets, not by tax dollars “taken at gunpoint.”? And so on, and so on.
Now, with the possible exception of the reference to markets, everything in the above statement would also be true of anarcist socialists, many of whom are adement feminists, and none of whom would be accused by someone like Amp of not being a real feminist.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Libertarians like to pretend there’s no class system.
There’s a good — well, more like evil — reason why businesses discriminate in hiring. That allows them to divide and conquer workers. While a business may suffer from losing highly qualified workers, and from friction in the workplace, that loss is far outweighed by their potential losses to united action by workers. In the US and elsewhere, racial, gender, and sector segregation have been enormous barriers to effective labor organizing.
Oh, and collective action IS government. It’s the essence of democracy, in the truest sense.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:58 am
I don’t think you’ll find anyone, anywhere who would class the Nazis as springing from any sort of “Left” philosophy–up to and including Nazis and neo-Nazis themselves. Just because Hitler et al. used the word “socialism”, it doesn’t mean they ever used in the way it is commonly thought to be defined.
Once again, you are going on about “feminism” and “feminists” as if you were talking about some coherent, organised political party that has but one established agenda. And once again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong: MANY feminists disagree with “gender-neutral custody”. OK? I’m one of them. You can stuff your fingers in your ears and sing out “La, la, la–I can’t hear you so you don’t exist” all day if you like, but the fact is I AM here and I ain’t going away any time soon. Right? Secondly, most feminists I have ever sp0ken to don’t want ANYONE to be registered for any putative draft: male OR female. So your conspiracy theory about evil feminist warriors training up girl-children for use as future cannon-fodder is about, oh, 100% off-base as well.
I’m sure you can find some people who call themselves “feminists” who do support the measures you attribute to all feminists, but you know what? They don’t speak for me or for most of the feminist women I know. Maybe you should actually try communicating with feminist women rather than going by some stereotype you’ve concocted on your own?
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 10:58 am
NYMOM-
Well, just great, asshole. You have just become the “real” libertarian here according to all the non-libertarians, who will see you as typifying what libertarians “really believe”. I could write for days on this thread now about how libertarians oppose corporate socialism, and to an extent the existence of corporations, and suport small business freedom, with small businesses being much better for women than corps, and about how they would redirect police funding from the drug war to locking up rapists and wife-beaters, and then go on to describe left-libertarian with its focus on economic justice and ending poverty, etc., etc., etc.
But no, now all the leftists reading this will just assume I am coving for the likes of slimey rat feces like you. Well, if this is how the sides are going to line up, I’m outa here.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Wow, so much for libertarian solidarity.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:03 am
NYMom,
You are mistaken to associate national socialism with the political left. I believe that it can be associated with the political right just as much as with the political left. It really is its own thing (a combination of rightist & leftist concepts & ideologies) and, in a way, falls either outside of the common view of the political spectrum or, if you want to average things, squarely in the middle.
See for some further info.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Er, “sector” should have been “sectarian,” as in playing religious sects off against each other.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Since a main focus of the Nazis, from their genesis, was the physical destruction of the German Left, I don’t think they can be considered associated with the Left in any way.
There’s a bastardized notion of “socialism” which assumes that nationalized industries, in themselves, are socialist. But that’s not the case, if it’s merely a matter of changing the form of the ruling class’s ownership of the means of production. Or, as that Wikipedia article put it,
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Well, if this is how the sides are going to line up, I’m outa here.
I think *that* post did more to make Libertarians look bad here than anything NYMOM has said. It’s pretty insulting to decide that everyone here is going to decide NYMOM is representative of all Libertarians and nothing any other Libertarian says can undo that (oh, right–we’re “sheeple,” and so can’t think). Especially given that Redneckfeminist in particular posts here regularly.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Insulting in the extreme. But if some Libertarians do throw about terms like “sheeple” it’s not surprising some of them really would believe that those of us who favour communities and collective action really are incapable of distinguishing between individuals and/or having independent thought.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Note: my current perspective about discrimination is more in line with mythago’s. As far as whether paid maternity leave helps or harms women’s advancement, I think it doesn’t have to, depending on other aspects of the economic system. On the other hand, I don’t really know how things are in countries which have substantial mat. leave (wrt. pay gap and glass ceiling), and I’m still interested. I did a quick search on google, but I didn’t find much. Maybe someone else has more info?
I currently think that most applications of libertarianism are overly idealistic (in the same way that communism can be overly idealistic). But libertarianism is not inherently antagonistic to feminism. If I were to accept that, it would mean that I’d have to say I wasn’t really a feminist when I was back in college. I’m much more inclinced to say that I fell head over heels for market theory after taking Econ 101. And as we all know, love is blind… It took some higher levels of Econ for me to start seeing some of the cracks. Some aspects of libertarianism still make my heart go pitter-patter, but I assure everyone here that I am no longer intimately involved… ;0) If you’d still like to argue with my original comment, perhaps you can refer to “College Barbara P”, (a fictional character who I will try my best to impersonate).
Here’s an idea from the “real” me: Libertarian or not, I’d love to see more non-governmental feminist collective action! Then there’d be no more worry about changes being dismantled by a hostile administration.
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Barbara Preuninger
Hear, hear!
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Hm… I was in the middle of my post when Brian Vaughan made the point that all collective action is government.
But not all of it is. An example would be “Working Mother’s” “Top 100 companies for Working Mothers” survey. These kinds of action provide information to consumers or potential employees in a way that doesn’t really require any legal enforcement.
(Democratic) government is more properly defined as collective action that has the power of force (legal, police, etc.) behind it.
I was also in the middle of my post when this thread somehow made a turn into Nastyville. I was enjoying it prior. Any chance it could turn back?
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:42 am
alsis38,
I’m not sure what you mean about the Vagina Monologues post, but I feel like I should respond because I think you’re referring to me.
I’m “sort of” an ifeminist. I like McElroy’s approach to complete gender neutrality with regard to laws and government policies. But unlike McElroy, I am willing to recognize that 1) discrimination still exists and 2) it is a problem. A big problem.
While I grow impatient with people who constantly claim victimhood, I think it’s important to recognize when you are being discriminated against. Otherwise, you become even more powerless. You cannot overcome it unless you first recognize it.
However, some women take what feminists have done for them and spit on it. Some women choose to be unequal. The IWF ladies are a good example of this, and I have a grand ol’ time slamming them on my blog.
Other women who choose to be unequal too. They choose to get by on male chivalry. Then, when things go bad, they come running to the feminists for protection. The cycle of dependency continues, and they never become empowered. They aren’t victims, in my opinion. They made their choice, and they chose to be second-class citizens. Who made them make that choice? No one! They wanted the pedestal, they wanted to be the pampered princess, they chose to put their destiny in someone else’s hands.
I can’t say it better than the Heartless Bitches can.
That, in my view, is women’s rights in action. It’s holding women accountable for their actions. Sure, you can blame the patriarchy for women behaving this way. But ultimately, we make our own decisions.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Effeminate tea-drinking bastards! Go back to Normandy!
…The same thing that would happen to my economy if the Big One hit and half of California slid into the ocean: everyone would be pretty screwed. What this has to do with labor laws in a stable economy with an uncollapsed market, where jobs haven’t all disappeared, I have no idea. Capitalism doesn’t do too well in a state of total economic collapse, either–in fact, no economic system succeeds during a state of total economic collapse.
Great Britain–along with all the other first-world countries that provide real maternity leave and socialized daycare–provides some pretty good evidence that neither policy will end commerce or employment as we know it. If there were a plague of frogs and lice, or if sulphur started raining from the sky, England might have a little more trouble subsidizing parenthood to the same extent. Since the skies are clear and the economy relatively secure, England may continue its socialist, feminist spendthriftiness.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Be nice to Decnavda; he is on your side. He’s part of the “libertarian left”. Just check out his blog if you don’t believe me. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think NY MOM considers herself a libertarian — or even close. She posts on lots of feminist blogs.
The libertarian left is fairly small, but growing. Democratic Freedom is another example. As the name suggests, they are Democrats.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
I wasn’t referring to you in particular, drumgrrl. Honest. And at any rate, I agree that at a personal level, it can be damn annoying to witness women (especially those you care about) get involved in the same regressive and self-destructive b.s. over and over again. However, what ifems never seem to acknowledge is A) Not all women spend their whole lives doing this, B) A lot of the women who do this have never called themselves feminists or associated in any way with feminism. In fact, some of them probably have never heard of feminism. C) This syndrome was around eons before anyone had ever heard of women’s liberation.
Furthermore, ifems *don’t* hold women of their own class accountable, at least not from my POV. The very nature of their classist perspective makes it impossible for them to acknowledge this, but it’s true. It’s true for the simple reason that a well-to-do woman will never suffer the same degree of negative impact for her bad decisions that a working-class woman will. Money, and those “little plastic bubbles of privilege” that McElroy and her “sistren” operate in makes that impossible.
Of course, their warmed-over Ayn Randisms would seem to imply that money and prestige are by themselves proof enough of a woman’s inherent virtue;that these things speak for themselves as to the clearly exemplary decisions their keeper has made in her life. Personally, I find Ayn Rand repulsive and thus don’t take much stock in that particular POV.
Also, I fail to understand the concept of a “cycle of dependency,” at least in all cases. The truth is, we are all dependent on each other sometimes. It seems ridiculous to me to pretend otherwise. All sorts of folk in my life, some feminist, have done wonderful things for me that I couldn’t do for myself. I have repaid that in some form where I was able to. But again, that goes to the core of the difference between libertarians and whatever Lefty stripe I’m belonging to this week. Libertarians have a fundamental (some would same Fundamentalist) distrust and fear of any collective action or any acknowledgement of human interdependence at all. It’s like a secular version of Original Sin, and it clearly colors your perception of feminism just as it colors every Libertarain perspective on any collective movement at all: Unions, Environmental Movements, Feminism what have you. All are suspect by their very “unnatural” and “improper” existence. Their actions are thus inherently sinful. What they do or do not accomplish is almost trivial by comparison to the “crime” of existing in the first place.
One more thing: The worship by ifems at the altar of laissez-faire capitalism and its (mostly) male champions is just one more example of a double standard at work. Like most of the Libertarians I’ve encountered, they simply don’t apply anywhere near the same stringency to the repeated “bad judgment” of, say, corporations that they do to individual women outside their own class or political stripe. Otherwise, they’d be venting their spleens against corporate bailouts and imperialist wars in the Mid-East AT LEAST as often as they’re snidely attacking plays about vaginas or the existence of Title IX.
Feh.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Thank you for you support, RF. I do, however, need to appologize. I should not have made overbroad assumptions of other’s reactions. For what it is worth, I was not actually stereotyping just leftists, but rather making an assumption about the general human tendancy to assume the worst of those you disagree with. If I was trying to debate the corporate tax on a right-libertarian thread, and some leftist came in and compared libertarians to nazis, I would likewise assume that I had just lost hope of reaching the libertarians with reasoned debate. In that case, as here, it would probably be true of some and not true of others. While continuing debate might or might not be worthwhile in either case, it would still be wrong to make generalizations.
I do believe that there are degrees of wrong, and I do object strongly to the suggestions that what I did was worse than the person who compared feminists to communists and nazis. However, while a lesser wrong, it was still a wrong, and for that I appologize.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
I’m not a true libertarian, but it’s definitely the closest to my ideology. I don’t support gender-based affirmative action. But I’m not ready to repeal all anti-discrimination laws either. I can’t go into detail on that, because I would write 50 paragraphs. I will answer a specific question someone has on it, though. An example would be the allegations of sexism against Wal-Mart; that should not be legal. (And it isn’t legal, either.)
I think affirmative action and some anti-discrimination laws have hurt women. You can probably guess what I mean by that. 1) It puts the burden of proof on the woman that she got the job due to her own merit, and 2) it allows for some women who really can’t “cut it” to be promoted to positions they’re not ready for. Ultimately, those women fail at their jobs or choose to leave to raise kids. Employers remember that, and will be reluctant to promote or even hire women in the future. They will find creative ways to avoid the law.
I also think the current mommy-madness is bad for feminism. We’ll have equality when men and women are equal partners in childrearing; not when we elevate motherhood over fatherhood, or when employers are forced to give breaks to moms that they don’t give to dads (except for physical differences like pregnancy, of course). How many women do you know who play the “mommy card”? Too many for my taste.
If you put your career on hold for children, you shouldn’t expect to have the same status as others who have made the sacrifice for their jobs. It isn’t just men who make family sacrifices, but also careerist women. Not only that, but when women are given breaks to be a mommy, it’s just giving them an incentive to do all the shit work (i.e. the great “balancing act”). It’s causing her to continue to be the one who takes care of the kids and the house. It’s like saying, “Well we know you are still a woman and it is still your duty to do wifely things, so we’ll go ahead and make exceptions for you.”
So why don’t men ask for these exceptions? 1) It usually doesn’t fly with the boss, 2) it makes them look weak, and 3) why would they, when their wives are taking care of the kids anyway? Maybe if a woman refused to balance work and family more than her husband, we’d see her husband step up. And if he doesn’t, why did she marry him in the first place?
I knew I would go off on a tangent. My point is that laws should be gender-neutral. Employers shouldn’t have to give women special treatment, unless employers want to. And believe it or not, some of them do want to. Why? Because they know some of these women are vital to their company and they’ll do anything to keep them. That’s the free market working. See this article.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
The most feminist Republicans I can find are from The WISH List. I’d call them socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
If you put your career on hold for children, you shouldn’t expect to have the same status as others who have made the sacrifice for their jobs
You should, however, have the expectation that your on-hold will be treated the same as others’ - i.e., it’s pretty plainly discrimination when a woman who takes time off work gets mommy-tracked when male co-workers who spend the same amount of time at work get cut slack.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Okay, alsis38, I get it. You were talking about Hoff-Sommers, and I thought you were talking about Amp’s link to one of my blog posts. It all makes sense now. And yes, Hoff-Sommers is a douchebag.
I can’t defend right-wing libertarians. I don’t think they can be feminists. Most of them are just Republicans who want to feel unique, so they give themselves the “libertarian” label. They actually bear little to no resemblance to classic liberalism, which is supposedly the basis for modern-day libertarian thought.
As for collective action, Amp might have a point there. I was the president of the feminist group on my campus for a while, and found it incredibly hard to do collective action. I was always going off on my own thing (and I could get away with it, because I was the president). I think I made some positive changes on campus, but I could only hack it for one year. Perhaps that’s why libertarian feminism (that is actually feminism) isn’t very organized. I mean, who has heard of ALF? (Check that link out, it really is libertarian and feminist!)
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Redneck Feminist, can you give me an example of a law that requires employers to give more time off to women, but not to men? Can you name me just one law that allows that?
Affirmative action laws were instituted in order to change the behavior of bigots. That’s what they were originally designed for; to crack open the door for people who otherwise had the door shut in our faces, period. The hope was, that if a few of us got our foot in the door and proved ourselves, that the bigotry would start ebbing away.
Didn’t quite work out that way, did it? Prejudice has deeper roots. What I’ve seen, over my years, is a lot of ‘tokenism’ and ‘honorary white man’ status—’nother words, the “well, you’re the exception to the rule” or “you’re not like the others” status. And some people (I call them ’sellouts’) buy into that status, and are even more quick than their masters to slam the door on the fingers and toes of those who resemble them. It’s sad. They’re sad.
Now, as for the employer who doesn’t want to hire a woman because of a previous bad experience with a woman—that’s straight-up bigotry. I have yet to encounter an employer who has a bad experience with a white man and says, “That does it! No more white men for me!” White men are judged on an individual basis. Not so women or others of color. Not yet.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is gender neutral. Fewer men take advantage of it for cultural reasons. They have every right to appeal refusals just as the women do. They don’t. Why not? Men are not in an economically weaker position to act in this regard than say, feminists were in the sixties and seventies when many anti-discrimination laws were passed, so what gives? Do you accuse them of buying into victimology too? This drives me crazy, just like when fellow unionists moan about the ‘futility’ of certain battles because the deck is stacked against us. Shit, when hasn’t the deck been stacked against us?! If people without a pot to piss in, deep in debt to the company store, could put it all on the line for better pay and working conditions back around the turn of the century, I think we oughta be able to muster up at least that amount of courage, with all of our relative advantages. I’d like to see some more of my brothers stepping up to battle, instead of waiting for feminists to do all the heavy lifting.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
La Lubu, I should have clarified. I don’t think there are any laws that give women more time off than men. The only policy I’m aware of that isn’t gender-neutral is affirmative action. What I’m saying is that women should not expect to have the same career status when they do take time off. They shouldn’t claim discrimination against mothers, and then sue their employers. So it’s not so much that I think there’s a law that specifically says women get more time off. It’s that employers are often not sure what is going to be considered discrimination, and they’re afraid of getting sued.
Furthermore, there are “feminist” groups that advocate forcing employers to give more time off to parents (of either gender), and I absolutely disagree with that. One example is Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights (MOTHER).
But again, I don’t think all anti-dicrimination laws should be trashed. The allegations against Wal-Mart and Morgan Stanley are two good examples of discrimination that I think should definitely be illegal. That is one area where I’m not a true libertarian.
I also don’t think all claims of discrimination are a false sense of victimhood. On the contrary; I think discrimination very much exists and we shouldn’t be silent about it. But this mommy-madness stuff is self-imposed, and I don’t think women are victims when their careers suffer for their choices.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
RF-
This comment was written by Decnavda.Wal-Mart and Morgan Stanley are giant government-created legal fictions that posess many financially valuable legal advantages unavailable to mere natural persons. Your deviation from “pure” libertarianism lies not believing that they should be reasonably regulated, but in agreeing (if you do) that they should exist at all.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Good point, Decnavda.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
“NYMOM is representative of all Libertarians and nothing any other Libertarian says can undo that (oh, right”“we’re “sheeple,”? and so can’t think). Especially given that Redneckfeminist in particular posts here regularly.”
Don’t flatter yourselves…
I never said I was a Libertarian…I wouldn’t be caught dead associating with ANY of the political parties currently in existence…I just wrote why I thought Libertarians were against collective action of any kind either on the right or left…and then put my OWN OPINION in on why the left is categorically more dangerous when they organize for collective action comparatively speaking then the right generally is…
As far as I’m concerned Libertarians represent just another ism…with all the potential for dangerous, anti-social actions that they condemn so much in everyone else…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
‘If you put your career on hold for children, you shouldn’t expect to have the same status as others who have made the sacrifice for their jobs. ”
Yes, you’re 100% right…you should NOT expect to have the same status, you should have MORE after putting your career on hold to have a child…as you took a leap of faith to invest yourself in your own and the rest of society’s future by contributing one of your children to said society…
Why in the name of God should a career person get any more status then what they have right now…
You get a good job, you get paid a good salary and can spend EVERY PENNY OF IT on yourself…you get rewarded immediately by the society you live in for your career ‘investment’ and that’s it…
What more do you think you should have???
Actually unless you’re discovered the cure for cancer, saved your country from a foreign invasion or something similar (and their are NOT too many of us who will do things like that) you are worth exactly the same thing to your society as everyone else like you; and there are many others just like you out there today, each one ready to jump into your job and take your salary, car and nice apartment, probably for half the price your company pays you…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
“Not only that, but when women are given breaks to be a mommy, it’s just giving them an incentive to do all the shit work (i.e. the great “balancing act”?). It’s causing her to continue to be the one who takes care of the kids and the house. ”
This statement ALONE is one of the main reasons that feminists can NEVER be allowed to speak for mothers…as I’ve raised two daughters and am very involved with raising my grand daughter and I would NEVER call that job “shit work”.
Actually no matter what YOU do, the job ANY mother does is more important then yours…
When I was young I saw two Presidents leave office, one to a gunshot and the other to resign and guess what the country didn’t skip a beat, we had another man in the job the next day and it was like nothing ever happened…not so with a mother…although I KNOW feminists like you and MRAs (and I know you post on their boards too and agree with them on many issues) you would like to BELIEVE anybody can replace a child’s mother, but once again you’re wrong…and time will demonstrate that as well once your nutty gender-neutral social engineering experiment collapses…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
I’m poor. I used to live in a trailer. I’m not a career bitch yet, but I sure want to be.
I didn’t mean societal status, I meant status with my employer. And I don’t think my employer should be obligated to elevate my status just because I decided to add to the population problem.
If women want to be independent, they need to make their own money. Why did Dr. Hager’s ex-wife allow him to abuse her? Why didn’t she leave sooner? Because she was financially dependent on him. I don’t want to be in that situation. Ever.
And in the workplace, it’s a constant competition. Of course someone else is always there, ready to take your place. That’s why you have to be the best; you have to compete and you have to win. The ones who get to the top usually aren’t the ones who take time off to change diapers.
In college, do you think everyone gets the same grades? No. Only the best students get the best grades. The best students usually attend all the classes and do the most work. And they get rewarded for it. If that’s unfair, then I guess I’m an advocate for unfairness.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Actually no matter what YOU do, the job ANY mother does is more important then yours…
Well I am a mom.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
My cat thinks very highly of libertarianism. As an ape, however, I think it is pretty impractical.
I wouldn’t really advocate NYMOM’s pro-natalist policies (ironic given the nazi bit- interesting post on culturekitchen about facism, sex and reproduction ), but that is an interesting point. It’s an investment that has to be paid for somehow . . .
NYMOM - what on earth gave you the idea that the Nazis were leftwingers? And could you acknowledge that you were mistaken about that?
This comment was written by Dan S..It’s an interesting question whether rightwing dictatorships are less prone to social engineering. The Nazis were certainly trying to engineer society, albeit through genocide . . .
Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
NYMom,
“You are mistaken to associate national socialism with the political left. I believe that it can be associated with the political right just as much as with the political left. It really is its own thing (a combination of rightist & leftist concepts & ideologies) and, in a way, falls either outside of the common view of the political spectrum or, if you want to average things, squarely in the middle.
See for some further info. ”
That’s the modern spin…but it was no accident that Hitler and Stalin were allies…they had much in common with their political views and systems…and IF Germany had won, I predict we would have seen the same sorts of social engineering experiments that the Soviet Union practiced until fairly recently…
MOST of these sorts of social engineering type experiments focus on attempts to break the age old bonds of family, religious, community/tribal loyalties that, for the most part, have served humanity well over the years and allowed civilizations to thrive where they were left alone…probably that’s why the left is more apt to commit these sorts of ‘crimes against humanity’ versus the right…Basically I think the right is just after the power, but doesn’t much care about what you do on a lesser level…the left appears quite willing however to invade even spaces that we previously considered off limits…they appear to frankly have no limts…
If you really examine feminism, btw, you’ll see these same sorts of attacks and attempts to undermine all these more or less natural bonds as well, especially the mother/child one…so it’s just another continuation of social engineering as per the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany…anywhere the left takes over actually, even Vietnam and Cambodia, if you examine the history, same thing…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
So how, exactly, am I conducting a gender-neutral experiment? Because my fiance actually shares child-raising responsibilities for a child that isn’t even biologically his?
Does it occur to you that not all women are the same? Not all of us have this maternal instinct you speak of. In fact, if my fiance and I have our own child, he will be the one to stay home and wipe its butt. We’ve already decided that. Should that be against the law or something?
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
“If women want to be independent, they need to make their own money. Why did Dr. Hager’s ex-wife allow him to abuse her? Why didn’t she leave sooner? Because she was financially dependent on him. I don’t want to be in that situation. Ever.”
We cannot say that, as life is a little more complicated then that…Many woman stay for much more complex reasons then just money…We don’t KNOW the real reasons she stayed with him…only what they both say now…
Additionally in the real world the students who get the best grades do NOT always get the best jobs, nor do they always make the most money…again it’s a lot more complicated then that…Actually Walt Disney was a high school dropout and dishonorably discharged from the army…His family thought he would be a total failure since he spent all of his time drawing silly cartoons (sorry Amp)….
Really students who are in the top 10% of their class frequently managed to do that by not socializing with their fellow human beings and form very odd personality tics due to this self-imposed isolation, that impacts them for their entire lives…Many very successful adults were fairly mediocre students, I hate to tell you and vice versa…it’s just one of those ironic truths…
It’s the well-rounded individual we must strive to be…NOT the woman who must imitate a man’s life cycle but one who makes her OWN way striving for a compromise between her education, career and her family, if she wishes to have children and I think most women do…BTW, I have nothing against a woman deciding to forego having children and focus on her education or career as long as it’s HER OWN decision… not one some ism told her was what she SHOULD be doing because that’s what they think is right…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
“This statement ALONE is one of the main reasons that feminists can NEVER be allowed to speak for mothers…”
you know there are feminists who *are* mothers, right? I mean, I’m sure you’re arguing that won’t like it/do it well/represent it appropriately, but it really does sound as if you think the two categories are mutually exclusive.
And c’mon - “shit work” isn’t meant to describe raising children, but the experience of raising children where burdens fall unfairly and disproportionately on mothers.
what’s all this about replacing moms? Don’t forget, many feminists are fighting for half-decent maternity leave, as well as good, affordable daycare.
Personally - I work in a urban public school in a neighborhood that is better than some, but with a lot more problems than others. I think kids should have *at least* one adult who loves them and is able to effectively care for them. As long as they have that, I really don’t care about the details. They could be raised by wolves, as long as the wolves make sure they have clean clothes, enough food, did their homework, etc. In fact, since wolves don’t usually abuse or neglect their pups, that might be preferable in some cases.
This comment was written by Dan S..Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Nazism was largely, though not exclusively, a left-wing phenomenon. It was well-known that the primary voluntary conversions among German radicals in the 1930s were back and forth between the Communists and the Nazis. The difference then was that the Communists were international, whereas the Nazis were nationalist.
“Nationalist” has come to have right-wing overtones, largely in reaction to the theoretical internationalism of communism (if the left is international, then any national movement must be of the right, right?).
The Nazi economic program was basically left-wing. Nationalization of industry, more benefits and protections for the working class, collective action groups in neighborhoods and towns, and so on. Their military program was right-wing; aggressive advancement of the narrow national interest. Their cultural program was left-wing - destruction of the corrupt traditionalism that had sapped the strength of the mighty German volk, and so on ad nauseum. Probably most telling, the state, not private enterprise, the church, or the family, was seen as the organizing unit of society. Overall they were lefties.
However, that’s not really germane to anything these days. Now that Saddam’s government is gone, the only remaining Nazi entity out there is the Ba’ath Party in Syria. (All Ba’ath parties were founded by Nazis and fellow travelers in the 1930s and 1940s to counterbalance British influence in the region.) There aren’t any significant left-wing groups that use or adhere to Nazi philosophies, although some of the animal-rights folks are drifting in that direction. It certainly doesn’t tell you much about, say, NOW, to know that they and the NSDAP are both broadly “left wing”. Times have changed.
Using “Nazi” to paint a left-wing group with the collectivist brush means the same thing as using “Inquisition” to paint traditionalists with intolerance - it says “I really hate this concept and to prove it I will associate the concept with the nastiest word I know”. Tells us what you think; doesn’t tell us anything about the larger world.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Stalin had this in common with Hitler: the state he ran hunted down and imprisoned and killed the Left.
Most of the “social experiments” — decriminalizing homosexuality, providing free abortion on demand, and so forth — were ended by Stalin’s dictatorship, which preferred women pregnant and raising large numbers of children. Stalin was the frontpiece for a counterrevolution. All that blood was the destruction of the revolution.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
“So how, exactly, am I conducting a gender-neutral experiment? Because my fiance actually shares child-raising responsibilities for a child that isn’t even biologically his?
Does it occur to you that not all women are the same? Not all of us have this maternal instinct you speak of. In fact, if my fiance and I have our own child, he will be the one to stay home and wipe its butt. We’ve already decided that. Should that be against the law or something? ”
Not at all…whatever people decide to do on an individual level I have no problem with..he works you stay home, you work he stays home or you both work and get a care-giving dog to raise your child…it’s when people attempt to get these decisions made into law that I object…as in gender-neutral custody that is a court-imposed ordering of mother and children (even babies) to be separated…
I will never agree with that idea, that absent abuse or neglect, any court has the RIGHT to separate mothers from their children…
AND by the way, raising a child is the most important responsibility anyone can ever have, not the ’shit work’ of society as others have led you to believe…I think you’ve been hanging around too many feminists and MRAs from the way you talk…you need to find better companions…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Allies?
Uh, remember that movie with Joseph Fiennes and Jude Law? And Ed Harris as the evil sniper? Enemy at the Gates, I think it was called. It was about the battle of Stalingrad, one of the major battles in the conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR.
Germany and the USSR signed a pact of nonaggression in 1939. The Soviet Union promised neutrality in exchange for not getting invaded and free rein in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, eastern Poland, and eastern Romania. Hitler was sort of lying about his half of the nonaggression pact. He announced his decision to invade Russia in 1940. In 1941, German troops invaded the USSR, and managed to get as far as Moscow.
So…allies is a bit of a stretch.
None of this, moreover, has anything to do with the affinity or lack thereof between communism and Nazism–these were not ideological choices. This all relates to Hitler’s decision to exploit fear and the USSR’s understanding that invasion by Germany would be a bad, bad thing.
For a better indication of the relationship between Nazis and communists, you’d want to look back to the bitter fights between German communists and the Nazis. Until Hitler rose to power in 1933, the two parties were sort of battling for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised. After Hitler became Chancellor, the NSDAP persecuted opposition parties, including the communists. Eventually, communists were sent to concentration camps.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
“They could be raised by wolves, as long as the wolves make sure they have clean clothes, enough food, did their homework, etc. In fact, since wolves don’t usually abuse or neglect their pups, that might be preferable in some cases. ”
Well I have to agree…I frankly, think the idea of care-giving dogs (like the ones who help the blind and handicapped) are better equipped to care for children, at least toddlers, then many of the caregivers I’ve seen working parents leave their kids with…
It never ceases to amaze me at who people will leave their kids with for 40 to 50 hours a week while they go off to work….I wouldn’t have hired some of these sitters to care for my dog while he was alive, never mind my kid…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
I found this diary because someone in the comments linked to my blog, Democratic Freedom. I’ve thought about the relationship between libertarianism and feminism before, and it’s not an easy subject to work around. I posted a discussion at my blog once, http://libertariansforamerica.blogs.com/index/2005/04/tribal_feminism.html, talking about the relationship between libertarianism/individualism and the greater good of society and all women. My attention was focused more on sexually promiscuous behaviors and how most libertarians see no problem with legalized prostitution. I’m not sure if this is a good contribution to the discussion, but I thought I should throw out that link.
This comment was written by LoganFerree.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Robert, that argument is so ridiculous, I’m almost speechless. The Nazis came to power on the checkbooks of the German bourgeoisie. The first thing they did in power was have all the union leaders executed. Living standards fell 50% under the Nazis. And they were opposed to the left from the very beginning. The origins of the Nazis were the Freikorps, the paramilitary forces raised to smash the socialist revolution in 1918.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Yes, Brian. The Nazis were anti-communists. This may be shocking, but it was possible to be anti-communist and on the left back then. (Heck, it’s possible now, if you don’t mind all your friends hating on you.)
Marxist class mumbo-jumbo will only confuse any student of the transition from Weimar to Hitler. Yeah, the Nazis were supported by “the bourgeoisie” - the left-wing part of the bourgeoisie, the Daimler-Benz socialists and trust fund hippies of the 1930s. Old ladies who thought Hitler would bring social justice funded his early operations and showered him with gifts.
The Nazis executed the union leaders because the union leaders were communists, mostly (and the ones who weren’t represen