On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:38:22 -0500
John Newman <j...@synfin.org> wrote:
> > ...Feminism is conceptual nonsense. If there are legal restrictions
> > placed on women those have to be abolished based on the principle of
> > equality before the law, but that's a *liberal* tenet not a 'feminist' one.
> > In other words 'feminism' is not needed. And no wonder in practice feminism
> > is just another tool of oppression.
>
> I have a girlfriend that would disagree with you, at least from a
> pragmatic point of view. On the way to "true liberty" (i.e anarchy),
> isn't it appropriate to fight for such things as suffrage, equal pay for
> women, abortion rights, etc ?
abortion rights, yes, unless by that you mean government run 'medicine'
in which case the answer is no.
female suffrage? No. Of course, there must not be any 'male' suffrage
either.
http://www.readliberty.org/liberty/1/22
"Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights
that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as
men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. "
equal pay? In a free market? Different people get paid differently.
Wanting to create 'economic equaity' by law is the non-plus-ultra of commie
statism. It has exactly nothing to do with anarchy.
>
> I suppose she would say you have to get your hands dirty in the
> existing system sometimes to accomplish anything, which admittedly
> is a thin fucking tightrope to balance.
The idea that you can get rid of tyranny by voting is just too
ridiculous. Actually you can have your 'female suffrage' if you want and see
how women vote for tyranny exactly like they did.
This argument isn't related to 'feminism' per se anyawy. It's the
typical position argued by 'practical' people of different backgrounds -
commie, libertarian etc. Except social democrats I guess since gradualist
tyranny by voting is a basic strategy used by them.
>
>
> <snip>
