For the manosphere crowd AND the libertarian crowd alike, I have dug up an excellent gem from almost 40 years ago. First, the juicy quotes :
On women in the workplace:
“I do not go so far as the extreme male “sexists” who contend that women should confine themselves to home and children and that any search for alternative careers is unnatural. On the other hand, I do not see much more support for the opposite contention that domestic-type women are violating their natures. There is in this, as in all matters, a division of labor; and in a free-market society, every individual will enter those fields and areas of work which he or she finds most attractive. The proportion of working women is far higher than even twenty years ago, and that is fine; but it is still a minority of females, and that’s fine too.”
On male slavery :
(…) if the husband should seek a divorce, he is socked with the laws of alimony, which he is forced to pay and pay to support a female whom he no longer sees, and, if he fails to pay, faces the barbaric penalty of imprisonment—the only instance remaining in our legal of imprisonment for nonpayment of “debt.” Except, of course, that this is a “debt” which the man had never voluntarily incurred. Who, then, are the slaves?”
On what has already occured, and the situation women would be in without forced redistribution of income from men (which, in its own sense, is proof that feminism will die along with the welfare state) :
The ultimate test of whether women are enslaved or not in the modern marriage is the one of “natural law”: to consider what would happen if indeed the women’s libs had their way and there were no marriage. In that situation, and in a consequently promiscuous world, what would happen to the children? The answer is that the only visible and demonstrable parent would be the mother. Only the mother would have the child, and therefore only the mother would be stuck with the child. In short, the women militants who complain that they are stuck with the task of raising the children should heed the fact that, in a world without marriage, they would also be stuck with the task of earning all of the income for their children’s support. I suggest that they contemplate this prospect long and hard before they continue to clamor for the abolition of marriage and the family.
On abolishing heterosexuality :
And so, at the hard inner core of the Women’s Liberation Movement lies a bitter, extremely neurotic if not psychotic, man-hating lesbianism. The quintessence of the New Feminism is revealed. Is this spirit confined to a few extremists? Is it unfair to tar the whole movement with the brush of the Lesbian Rampant? I’m afraid not.
On feminists worshipping uglyness :
But surely the attack on women as “sex objects” is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex. These new monsters of the female gender are out to destroy the lovely and age-old custom—delighted in by normal women the world over—of women dressing to attract men and succeeding at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagants would impose upon us! A world where all girls look like unkempt wrestlers, where beauty and attractiveness have been replaced by ugliness and “unisex,” where delightful femininity has been abolished on behalf of raucous, aggressive, and masculine feminism. Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. (…)
Some more common sense :
Woman as “sex objects”? Of course they are sex objects and, praise the Lord, they always will be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As for the wolf whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship to be established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in these roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When deeper relationships are established between men and women, they each become more than sex objects to each other; they each hopefully become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to bother mentioning this, but in today’s increasingly degenerate intellectual climate no simple truths can any longer be taken for granted.
And finally the “Amen”-moment :
Shall we then turn over some virgin land, maybe the Black Hills, maybe Arizona, to these termagants? Yes, let them set up their karatechopping Amazonian Women’s Democratic People’s Republic and bad cess to them. The infection of their sick attitudes and ideology would then be isolated and removed from the greater social body, and the rest of us, dedicated to good oldfashioned heterosexuality, could then go about our business undisturbed.
….followed by a final foot-note :
(…) the New Left women were wont to sleep promiscuously with the males in the movement and found to their shock and dismay that they were not being treated as more than mere “sex objects.” In short, after lacking the selfrespect to treat themselves as more than sex objects, these New Left women found to their dismay that the men were treating them precisely as they regarded themselves! Instead of realizing that their own promiscuous behavior was at the root of the problem, these women bitterly blamed the men, and Women’s Liberation was born.
So, who was this brilliant master-mind of a thinker who penned this analysis almost 40 years ago, while the politically-correct men were hiding in fear of the angry feminists? Who foresaw and predicted exactly where this disgusting, primitive movement would lead us?
Men, I give you no one less than Mr. Libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard, of course!
The quotes are from the brillian essay “THE GREAT WOMEN’S LIBERATION ISSUE: SETTING IT STRAIGHT” from the essay-collection “EGALITARIANISM AS A REVOLT AGAINST NATURE AND OTHER ESSAYS” (free from the Mises Institute here)
. Oh, and do throw them a few dollars for the effort of getting this and other invaluable books back into print despite the protests from the status quo.