View source for Feminism and libertarianism (hardcore mansplaning session)

What are the differences between feminism and libertarianism? If we consider not the SHUE from Twitter, but the doctrinal grounds. For convenience, let's define feminism as "the struggle for gender equality." The question arises: what exactly is equality? There are two main approaches here. The first characteristic of the liberal tradition in general (and of libertarianism in particular) is "procedural equality". It implies that if we have universal rules of interaction between people, equal rules of the game (laws), then there is equality. And if, as a result of living according to such rules, one becomes poor and sick, and the other rich and happy, then this can be called whatever you like, but not "inequality" or "injustice." But there is an "equality of outcome" approach more characteristic of the left. Say, since we have such different outcomes, the system is simply initially charged in someone's favor.

It would seem that if feminists drown for equality of results, and libertarians for equality of procedures, then there can be no agreement, right? No, it's not that simple. If you take what feminists say and translate it from bird language (patriarchy-gaslighting-mansplaining) to normal, it turns out that they are talking about one simple thing. Like, formal rules are cool. Well, let it be written in the constitution that a woman is also a person. However, something is written on the fence, but in reality there are a lot of informal practices that poison women's lives. To achieve a result, a boy needs to climb over two fences, and a girl - through four. The motto "a chicken is not a bird, a woman is not a programmer" is engraved on two additional ones. And there is nothing to argue with. It is foolish to deny the existence of everyday sexism, bad stereotypes, morons from the "male state" and the like. What then, fems are right to curse: is it necessary to bring equality with the help of quotas and "positive discrimination"? 

No, of course not. They just take a sledgehammer (the state) and try to repair the clock mechanism (informal institutions). As a result, the sledgehammer makes a boom-boom, the mechanism is shattered. The most illustrative example is the USSR, where a freed woman was charged with double duty. First, at the factory, plough, and then cook more borscht. But here, of course, they will say that in the USSR equality was imposed incorrectly and the patriarchal dog Stalin ruined everything. In short, they beat with the front side of the sledgehammer, but it was necessary with the back. However, there is not a single case when the directive establishment of equality by the state would be beneficial. In the same Scandinavia, the emancipation of women occurred naturally, and when the state came with its programs, it turned out that they were successfully driving women back into the kitchens. 

Here, too, libertarians win with the contention that change in informal practices can only come about in a gradual, evolutionary way. And all attempts to force with a sledgehammer lead only to fucked up varying degrees of severity. "Gradual" here does not mean that you need to sit on your ass, waiting until the abstract market decides everything. Any activist activity that is not associated with calls for state violence is this gradual movement. Many femactivists are doing this successfully. However, many others are not interested at all. And it's interesting to stand on Twitter in a white coat, denouncing patriarchy and demanding an immediate solution to all problems in the world.

[[Mihail Pojarsky ]] 2020-05-31
[[ru: Феминизм и либертарианство (сеанс хардкорного мэнсплейнинга)]]