Freedomain Radio

Very lengthy letter, but worth a read. I think she makes some good points about feminism.  (One of the signees is libertarian activist Sharon Presley.)

Link to the letter. 

I'm not addressing the content of the letter, but I have to say, dropping Sharon Presley's name significantly reduces the credibility of this letter, in my view.

I didn't think the piece as a whole was great, but I thought she was right to push back on the phrase, "feminism is socialism with panties". The part about the 1950s family was weak, as was the bit about supporting or not supporting female politicians. 

 that's great, I'm currently plowing through draft four of the documentary, but I will try and get to this tonight, thank you for posting!

Yet it is important to note that it is not women who have created the gender rights gap; it is a culture and society that has long seen women as secondary to men. Both culture and the government have been the biggest challenges feminists have faced in seeking equality. Government, reflecting the historical cultural prejudices against women, has enforced laws (opinions backed with guns, as Molyneux muses) against women since the beginning of the United States. Feminists, in working for equality, are therefore not working to support the state but rather desire to change it in order to eliminate the need for feminism. However, if libertarians categorically reject every attempt to challenge the presence of privilege in our culture, we should not be too shocked when feminists believe that the force of law is required to create a more humane and bearable space in which to exist.

This strikes me as convoluted and self-defeating.  On the one hand, she suggests that culture affects the law (i.e., legislation).  On the other, she suggests that legislation changes the culture. 

Does she promote equal rights, or changes in culture?  If she's complaining about legal inequality, what are those inequalities?  She never actually cites one.  If there are no remaining legal inequalities, then what is the justification for using law to change the culture?  The law can't be both equal and unequal at the same time.  

GregG:

I'm not addressing the content of the letter, but I have to say, dropping Sharon Presley's name significantly reduces the credibility of this letter, in my view.

 

Ditto.   I dropped her from my FB friend list because of some horrendous and dishonest trash talk against Stef and FDR.  She deplores the fact Stef has no diploma in psychology, ergo Stef doesn't have as much credibility as hers. I couldn't care less whether one has such and such diploma or certificate in a certain field of knowledge.  I value whether one's work is true and benevolent to me period. 
For example, i have zero formal "accreditation" and diploma in optimal human nutrition.  I utterly don't need it because of internet and self-experimentation.

Although I understand the motivation behind women's suffrage, the fundamental problem wasn't that women couldn't vote; it was that men could.

Voting is a State-granted privilege which confers legal indemnity for expropriation. Extending this privilege to both sexes did not right a wrong.

Alan Chapman:

Although I understand the motivation behind women's suffrage, the fundamental problem wasn't that women couldn't vote; it was that men could.

Voting is a State-granted privilege which confers legal indemnity for expropriation. Extending this privilege to both sexes did not right a wrong.

This was echoed in Emma Goldman's essay 'Woman Suffrage'.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_an9_woman_suffrage.htm

"Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it.  I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man.  But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed.  If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better.  To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers.  Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes.  Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right?  Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena?  The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly."

Before I dive in, does the article at least accept that I was very clear about being pro-libertarian feminism, I just opposed state sponsored radical anti-family feminism?

Yes, in paragraph 6. I would have appreciate a specific example of your "sleight of hand" from the author, though. 

Stefan Molyneux:

Before I dive in, does the article at least accept that I was very clear about being pro-libertarian feminism, I just opposed state sponsored radical anti-family feminism?

I genuinely don't think so.  Here's the opening paragraph:

Christine-Marie Dixon:

Stefan Molyneux’s recent video, a defense of his statement that “feminism is socialism with panties” (from which he takes his title) is not so much an enlightening philosophical speech as an ill-informed rant. The title of the video is intellectually dishonest, dismissing generations of women and men struggling for equality as panty-wearing socialists. The title panders to vulgar misogynists and is insulting to all women, feminists or not, and to anyone else who believes in equality between the sexes. The ideas expressed in this video and other videos of his that discuss feminism in a negative way are not only inaccurate but also dangerous, negatively influencing society’s perception of what feminism really is.

Claire Haus:

She deplores the fact Stef has no diploma in psychology, ergo Stef doesn't have as much credibility as hers.

Dept. of Irony checking in:

Greg Minton:

Yes, in paragraph 6. I would have appreciate a specific example of your "sleight of hand" from the author, though. 

Very brliefly she concedes this but then continues as if you never said anything about other non-socialist feminists at all and asserts that you were generalizing.  Which is ironic, considering that she is doing what she claims you are doing in paragraph six.

Dave Bockman:

Claire Haus:

She deplores the fact Stef has no diploma in psychology, ergo Stef doesn't have as much credibility as hers.

Dept. of Irony checking in:

HA!