Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Feminism are fully compatible
Message-ID: <865@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 17:45:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.865
Posted: Mon Jul 22 17:45:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 05:14:27 EDT
References: <309@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 47

brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says, plausibly enough, that:

> It seems that people are suggesting that liberty and feminism are
> antithetical.  I think exactly the reverse is true.

He then identifies liberty as something akin to the ideals of the
Libertarian Party, although he is not a member of that group.  (Brad
works in Ontario.  Is there a Libertarian Party in Canada?)  The
sort of "liberty" in which he believes is:
>						 the elmination
> of physical force from the commerce of the human race.  This means
> let people go about their business free of force from others, and that
> includes force from neighbours, corporations and governments."

Even if we could magically make physical coercion impossible, there
would be no way to prevent the continuation of economic subjugation
of one class by another.  I think that what the libertarians really
want is the "liberty" to use their economic power without interference.
The key argument to Brad's claim that libertarians and feminists are
allies is this:
> Now, to my mind the origin of sexism lies in the fact that women are,
> as a rule, of smaller stature and lesser strength than men.
> This has caused the domination of women by men.

If I may be blunt, this is typical libertarian ignorance.  There is no
way to substantiate the claim that women are naturally weaker than men
because for a very long time it has been customary to keep girls and
women less nourished than boys and men.  I am not just speaking of less
developed countries.  My grandmother tells me that when she was a child
only her father got eggs for breakfast and that the boys were fed more
at dinner.  If you tell me that this was because the men had to "go out
and earn the money" you are arguing circularly.  Furthermore, archaeo-
logical evidence shows that prehistoric hunters and warriors often were
women.  (Their skeletons had been assumed to be the bones of males just
because they were buried with weapons.)

To answer Brad's rhetoric:
> So what better ideal than one that advocates the elimination of
> physical strength as a tool to get one's desires?
How about an ideal which forbids the use of *any* force, physical
or economic, to suppress the individuals' use of their talents?

> In a world where only the mind counts, sexism and racism can't last.
True, but where money talks, the poor are mute.
_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt