iFeminists

[lark2 (deleted)]

What does anyone think about the iFeminists phenomenon? Does womens liberation need to be considered as a unique and seperate concern or is that divisive? If there can be iFeminists can there be iSocialists and iConservatives too?

[paleo48_PREV (deleted)]

`The combination of I (for individual) with feminists ( a group name) appears to be neutralizing at best. The same could be go for I(any group).

I recall reading an interview /style biography of Williams Burroughs, the gay author of Naked Lunch, in which he suggested that he didn't want to be a part of any gay rights groups. He didn't see the need.

[thomasp]

.For libertarians or strict constitutionalists to declare themselves anything other than pro-freedom is a tacit approval for the big state to remain in the business of giving and taking rights.

Everyone else seems caught up in the belief that rights somehow come in a fixed supply. To grant one, means to deny another somewhere else.

Freedom covers everything and everybody.

What is a gay right? Is it the freedom to have voluntary S-- without going to jail? It's so basic, but yes, I support that right. Of course I believe that this right extends to everyone.

Again, freedom covers everything and everybody.

Is it fair for a gay couple to have equal access to income tax laws written specifically for heterosexual couples? That's a different answer.

Our federal government has no business, according to its own original charter, defining marriage for the purpose of any law. In fact it has no business wasting tax money to discuss marriage or homosexuality for any reason. No serious person is going to consult us.gov to settle whether they've lucked into true love. And, despite their euphoric zeal, the government can't stop any two people from believing, honestly or not, that their relationship is a marriage (Bill and Hillary are the best evidence for this!).

Our federal government also has no business taxing income. Offering tax relief to reward behavior isn't objectively a good thing for the same reason that an offer for less severe beatings in Guantanamo isn't objectively a good thing.

So not only is the subdivision of rights imprecise, it is philosophically confusing. Confusion, for the pro-freedom argument, is deadly because the default attitude we face is that keeping the state is worth any price. People just hope that it can be put on layaway.

If you've given up on true freedom, then your only hope is to just keep blending in with the bigger voting base, and hope to consume more taxes than you pay.

In the end compartmentalized rights will be shuffled, traded, brokered, and squandered until they're finally consumed as antes. Then we'll all, gay and straight, find equality at the bottom.

[toddvanzetti]

.The mistake here is to equate feminism with rights by means of the state. Formally non-whites have had equal rights under the US constitution since the end of the civil war, but the racism of the dominant society, as well as the extra-state terrorism of white supremacists, prevented blacks and others from exercising anything resembling freedom.

Similarly, if society is dominated my the patriarchy and actively discriminates against women, paying them less for equal work or relegating them to jobs 'fit for women' and excluding them from all positions of power, well, formal rights become rather meaningless.

Thus the struggle for real freedom must be both directed against overt statist oppression and the repressive prejudices of nonstate actors. Feminism if for everyone. Recognizing the humanity of every person increases all of our freedom. More than the state eliminates freedom- take for example the parasitic capitalist class- they are generally the greatest threat to all freedoms.