Friday, December 25, 2015

Kathy Shaidle on Feminism and Libertarianism

The following is actually a comment Kathy posted on a Gavin McInnes essay over at Takkmag here [link]. As is often the case, an offhand comment at that site is as good as a guest post here. A great many of us are puzzled by the fact that many of the concepts of libertarianism and feminism make sense in theory but fail in practice. Kathy gives the simple Zen answer to the dilemman: They're not for everybody.

Feminism is like libertarianism: It is/was only meant for the gifted.
I don't like children and always wanted to work.
But I am an outlier. It would have been cruel to me (and my kids) to force me to be a housewife.
But here's the thing: Gifted women with spunk always found a way. I used to work for one of the first female lawyers in Canada. She was 80 at the time (during the 80s.) Female doctors, lawyers, scientists, astronauts -- there weren't LOTS of them, but there aren't supposed to be. Most men aren't those things either.
See Marie Curie etc. Most women AREN'T Curie. They SHOULD be at home instead of pushing little pieces of paper back and forth to each other and organizing office baby showers, which is what most female "careers" boil down to today.
They "have" to work? Only because taxes are too high. And what do they "need" is money for? Why... childcare and commuting of course :-)
I'm a libertarian for myself but a conservative for everyone else. Same with feminism.
Kathy Shaidle's own website is at
Quibcag: the smart girl is Marii Buratei of Joshiraku (じょしらく),


  1. Who says libertarianism is incompatible with family values? This is a silly claim. Libertarianism and family values are orthogonal to each other. Having a family is like doing a business start-up. Doing a family or doing a business requires long-term commitment and effort and the willingness to do it right and seeing it through. This is simple prudence and common sense. The notion that something worth doing is worth doing it right or not at all. This really has nothing to do with libertarianism at all.

    Libertarianism is about the freedom to make choices. Prudence and common sense is about following through on what ever choices one makes. The notion that these two principles are somehow in conflict with each other is rather silly to me.

  2. I don't believe that's stated anywhere in the post, which is more about feminism than libertarianism.

  3. kurt9:
    Libertarianism is about the freedom to make choices. Prudence and common sense is about following through on what ever choices one makes.
    There are people who by mental incapacity/immaturity cannot have 'the freedom to make choices' because they don't have the 'prudence and common sense' to handle the consequences of those choices.
    Kids can't drive, why? Because the consequences of them making bad choices driving motor vehicles could well be fatal to themselves and others.
    Same with sex, the consequences of which can mean offspring they are in no way capable of caring for. Or disease, as you may realize kids are pretty nonchalant about hygiene.
    That IMHO was Shaidle's point, feminism (and libertarianism) can't work for everybody. Not everybody's cut out for it.

  4. YIH:
    Well then we have libertarianism for those of us who can handle it and something else for those who cannot. There is no point of any more discussion on this issue because I would never even dream of giving up any measure of liberty simply because some other people (usually those I don't even know personally) cannot handle it. This is usually the agenda for those (like Shaidle) who want to have a "discussion" about this. My suggestion is to simply forget about it.