De re feminina

Megan McArdle and Kerry Howley did a great diavlog about feminism and libertarianism, and it addresses a lot of points I think are extremely valid as feminism advances and whatnot. The vest part comes in the last fifteen minutes where McArdle and Howley honestly discuss America's rather baby obsessed culture and expectations for women. I can not begin to recount the number of times I've seen women like they describe, and it's a bit unsettling to try and churn out a "superchild" and to banish unhealthy foods, vibes, looks, etc. from your life during your pregnancy.

Which brings me to another point. Among the other topics addressed - child predator hysteria, pay disparagement, etc. - norms were the topic of the day. And the most interesting of those is the "clean house = good person" norm that a lot of people tend to have, but Howley & McArdle don't see the same anxiety existing in men in conforming to said norm. However, I think a lot of men do feel the same pressure to conform, but are socially more able to ignore it as it is expected for a bachelor to be "messy". I mean, it's a hallmark of singleness for a man to keep a messy place until he finds a "good woman" to take care of his house for him. I just don't think it's as simple as the norm having less pressure on men, though, because if your father was an absolute neat freak ( as mine is) who equates a tidy household with not only being an upstanding citizen but with also just being a "proud man" you are likely to feel embarassed in letting people see your place unclean. It's not quite as pronounced as it is in women, but it definitely still exists. Of course, like many norms, I just ignore it to the extreme agitation of neat freaks everywhere.

For some reason, this entire dialogue brought to mind a statement that bothered me, spoken by one of my classmates in my mind numbingly boring psychology class. It's not the first time I've heard this statement, as it seems it has existed forever and ever, but it gets no less annoying when it's repeated by people around you. This sentiment is, of course, simply that times are different and the world is somehow a much more dangerous place than it was at some distant time in the mirth of history. This is a natural analogue to the "in my day, children respected their parents" meme and other such foolishness spouted by social conservatives or other naturally terrified people. It never seems to occur to these people that these sentiments have been expressed throughout history and have always failed to bring about the demise of civilization as we know it. They never look at the mainstream media and see that since news now = entertainment, it is necessary to constantly manufacture fear (and it used to come from the pulpit, in the time when mass media didn't exist and literacy was not as common as now) to keep people interested. I have a feeling that this fear plays into society's constant infantalizing of women, but I haven't developed it much beyond that.

Thoughts? Of course, when asking for thoughts, it would help if people knew this thing existed. It's nice having a private vent diary that doesn't cramp my hand.

A Bit of a Sputter in the Revolution, Folks. Nothing to See Here!

Man, so much happens while I'm at work. Wow, that's a dumb statement.
So, today, the Students for a Democratic Society (which has a very storied history) stormed the Cato Institute's offices in DC to protest the construction of I-69, otherwise known as an expansion of the NAFTA Superhighway. I swear, I'm not crazy, that's just what a lot of people call it.

If you put a tinfoil hat in the microwave, it still catches fire. Just sayin'.

Anyway, this is an excruciatingly disgusting exercise in mobs being shitty mobs and private property being destroyed, which is not libertarian at all. No matter how great your aims are, unless someone is being deprived of life or liberty against his will, how can you justify such an incredible act of coercion? Because a think-tank merely supports the idea? As libertarians we value very strongly and sincerely the old addage (paraphrased) "I find your views revolting, but I will die to defend them", do we not? Even if the specter of a political party bandying about the name (and certainly there is no unitary definition of "libertarian") has come crashing down, there is nothing good that can come of supporting the violent destruction of property because someone disagrees with you.

Am I missing the point somehow?

From Brian Doherty's excellent Radicals for Capitalism: "But were they advancing libertarianism while reveling in the dark comedy of mad communist faction and treachery?". The preceding passage comes from the beginning of a long section about Students for a Democratic Society, which was at once an anarcho-capitalist, Maoist and even (!) early neoconservative amalgamation in the late `60s.This relates well to the kind of support I saw among many libs for this scene today. Riots are sexy, yes, but they are inherently immoral unless they are defending the rights of another against coercion or fraud. Jesus H. Christ on a Melting Pogostick. I do think that smashing the State is extremely important, but not at the cost of one of the greatest guarantors of freedom: private property rights. Libertarianism is revolutionary but it must come about as an evolutionary change, id est, that it is not the same violent, bloody revolition of Pol Pot or V. Lenin, but a peaceful example of human progress.
Fuck me, I'm an idealist.

Again, am I wrong? Someone school me.

Links inspiring my canned rage tonight: reason. LRC and originating here