The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_Notoriuswun]

What's interesting here is that Mill was an early Libertarian, and his understanding of "equality" was wholly different than as understood by the post sixties Feminist movement. Mill believed in equality under the law for all, including woman. Modern Feminism is a form of Cultural Marxism, and hence, has been primarily interested in coerced egalitarianism through the law.

True enough. Interesting to note that the societal pendlum is now swinging towards Anarchy (anti-statism), and the Marxist heros of the sixties and seventies cry in vain.

It is also worth pointing out that women have been attending college in the droves over the past 15 years or so. Etching forward in graduation rates, and also there are now more women who attend college than men (really it has been like this for a while). Now take this fact to its logical conclusion, and it becomes obvious that the next generation will be a society of women...and after taking back seat for nearly 2,000 years, I would be willing to bet that they have no intention of giving up their newly-found power any time soon. =) Hopefully they can lead better than us males have...we have made an utter wreck of this thing called humanity.

[_Coggins7]

I'm not quite sure what your're getting at here. Anarchy is normally understood to be a form of Communism; indeed, "pure" communism is, in essence, Anarcho-Communism, as forseen by Marx. In any case, I neither see the masked window smashing thugs of the "battle of Seattle" as an alternative to the Left (indeed, the anti-globalization movement is deeply leftist in its ideology in many ways, even if "anti-statist") nor do I perceive any such pendulum swing. The U.S. continues a long march toward the soft totalitarianism of nanny state serfdom, regardless of which party is in office, and the E.U. has emerged as a profoundly anti-democratic institution. Latin America is recommunising and moving back to statist thugocracy after a short hiatus in the 90s, and Russia is moving quite quickly back toward dictatorship.

Things are swinging, but I'm not sure in the direction you seem to believe.

[_Notoriuswun]

I'm not quite sure what your're getting at here. Anarchy is normally understood to be a form of Communism; indeed, "pure" communism is, in essence, Anarcho-Communism, as forseen by Marx. In any case, I neither see the masked window smashing thugs of the "battle of Seattle" as an alternative to the Left (indeed, the anti-globalization movement is deeply leftist in its ideology in many ways, even if "anti-statist") nor do I perceive any such pendulum swing. The U.S. continues a long march toward the soft totalitarianism of nanny state serfdom, regardless of which party is in office, and the E.U. has emerged as a profoundly anti-democratic institution. Latin America is recommunising and moving back to statist thugocracy after a short hiatus in the 90s, and Russia is moving quite quickly back toward dictatorship.

Things are swinging, but I'm not sure in the direction you seem to believe.

Anarchy is not a form of Communism. It simply means the absense of govt. As a libertarian, anarchy (less or no state) is one of our founding motto's...you should know this by now.

It is also worth noting that each form of governence (ie communism, capitalism, etc) first must be preceded by a period of anarchy. (you must destroy before you can rebuild)

I guess I should have qualified that by saying Anarcho-Capitalist instead. ;)

[_Coggins7]

Anarchy is not a form of Communism. It simply means the absense of govt. As a libertarian, anarchy (less or no state) is one of our founding motto's...you should know this by now.

It is also worth noting that each form of governence (ie communism, capitalism, etc) first must be preceded by a period of anarchy. (you must destroy before you can rebuild)

I guess I should have qualified that by saying Anarcho-Capitalist instead. ;)

I don't know a lot about Anarchism as a philosophy, and have never really been interested in it per se. However, from what you've said so far, let me just say that Marx' ultmate utopia was a stateless society; the absence of government entirely, so I'm not sure in what sense you meant that Anarchy is not a form of Communism when Marx, Engles, and thier disciples quite clearly taught that it was in fact, Communism in its ultimate or final form.


Secondly, "Capitalism" is not a form of governance. As far as this goes that statement is unintelligible. "Capitalism" is nothing more or less than private property rights unhindered by capricious interference by the political class in private economic affairs. In other words, Captalism is simply liberty in the economic realm. "Capitalism" is not a system of anything nor is it a economic philosophy. The idea that it is is Marx's, not the classical liberal economists and philosophers who created the concept of liberal democracy in the first place. On the other hand, there can be no such thing as "Anarcho-Capitalism" either because some govenrment is needed to protect and guarantee the rights of its citezens against fraud, dishonesty, and other impositions upon their unalienable rights. Hence, a limited but effective govenrment is required to institute and maintain courts of law, both civil and criminal, police forces and powers etc., so that economic liberty can fucntion and be regulated under the concept of the rule of law and equality under the law. If men were angels, we would not, of course, need such insturmentalities. They are not, however.

There are plenty of historical examples of empire succeding empire or new societies being genreated without first having gone through a anarchic phase. A prime example woud be the United States. There was a war of independence; a revolution, but war is not by definitiona anarchy and the development from the colonial phase through the end of the war and the emergence of an independent civlization was a long, developmental process, not a series of definite phases such as Anarchy followed by whatever in a predetermined sequence. In this sense, in fact, you sound not unlike traditonal Marxists with their idea of standardized, predictable phases of economic development through different "epochs", such as from primitive communism, to feudalism, to capitalism, to the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, to Communism.


Loran

[_truth dancer]

Hi Loran...

What you are describing is the so called "moderate" Feminism,

You may describe it thusly but feminism is no more than believing in equality for both sexes.

Because some woman in the past have been extreme does not change the meaning of the word.

which, unfortunately, all but died after the late sixties.

Nonsense. As I have stated... virtually everyone I know considers themselves a feminist (with the exception of a few internet folks who still think men deserve rights not afforded to women). I know of no one who believes as you suggest nor have I heard anyone ever suggest anything close to what you suggest.

I think you are making up your own ridiculous idea to have something against which to fight.

Feminism means believing in equality. Period.

Code: Select all

 Its still out there, of course, but has no voice in the mainstream media or popular culture, which is dominated by "radical" Feminism, the ideology that licks up all the media and academic gravy. 

Again, who in the heck are you talking about? I have never heard such nonsense as you suggest fills the media.

~dancer~

[_Coggins7]

OK dancer, bye...

[_guy sajer]

Oh sure. We certainly wouldn't be interested in actually using laws to make someone to be fair... no, not at all.

In a constitutioal Republic, we of course can use laws to create fairness under the law; that is, in accordance with the rule of law. What it is impermissable to do is force people to be equal in an actual material or substantive sense.

And that is happening in the US? The country with the least equal distribution of income (along with UK) in the developed world?

Do you actually believe that this is the objective of most feminists?

Honestly, Coggins, posts such as this sound like you've memorized the talking points from a Michael Savage program and you're just regurgitating them here. Do you really see the world in such extreme terms?

Anecdotally, I work in development, a sector that is populated overwhelmingly with feminists, liberals, environmentalists, etc., and it has a disproportionate percentage of gays relative to the general population. Your caricatures don't describe a single of the hundreds of persons I've met and worked with in this sector over many a years. I know that radicals do exist out there, but they are, in my experience, few and far between.

[_Fortigurn]

Oh sure. We certainly wouldn't be interested in actually using laws to make someone to be fair... no, not at all.

In all seriousness, there's a very dangerous problem involved in making laws to force people to 'be fair'. It's a completely artificial solution to the problem, which doesn't solve anything. Unfortunately modern Western legalislation is almost entirely fear based, predicated on threats of harm or deprivation. If you condition people like you condition an animal, you'll end up with a population of animals.

[_Fortigurn]

I believe in equal pay for equal work. I also don't think that women are below or subjugated to man in any sense of the word. Men and women should be partners.

I don't see that as feminism, I see that as intelligent egalitarianism.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Oh sure. We certainly wouldn't be interested in actually using laws to make someone to be fair... no, not at all.


In a constitutioal Republic, we of course can use laws to create fairness under the law; that is, in accordance with the rule of law. What it is impermissable to do is force people to be equal in an actual material or substantive sense.


And that is happening in the US? The country with the least equal distribution of income (along with UK) in the developed world?

1. There is no such thing in an economically free society as "distribution of income" This is a leftist trope.

2. Why should there be equal distribution of income? Who makes the descision on how it is to be distributed, upon what criteria (are all jobs, goods, and services of equal worth?) and how much liberty are you willing to give up to achieve this ideal?

Do you actually believe that this is the objective of most feminists?

It is one of the objectives of the dominant radical feminist ideology; that, and far, far worse.

Honestly, Coggins, posts such as this sound like you've memorized the talking points from a Michael Savage program and you're just regurgitating them here. Do you really see the world in such extreme terms?

Try Von Mises, Von Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, and Sowell on for size, as well as a littel dose of Bastiat. Claims like this of "extremism" are just, like the race card, a debate stopping mechanism and a way to buy yourself a little extra time in the arena of ideas. You either have a core philosophy of life or you do not.

Anecdotally, I work in development, a sector that is populated overwhelmingly with feminists, liberals, environmentalists, etc., and it has a disproportionate percentage of gays relative to the general population. Your caricatures don't describe a single of the hundreds of persons I've met and worked with in this sector over many a years. I know that radicals do exist out there, but they are, in my experience, few and far between.

Nice try, but the left is what it is and the people who are committed to it ideologically are who and what they are. The left has a long, well understood and documented history, and your own subjective impressions of both it and them change nothing.