Feminism

According to the dictionary, feminism is:  "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"

For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income? Why should we have 'economic equality' among men and women? Men and women should make equal pay for an equal amount of work.  They should not make equal amounts of pay regardless of whether or not they work.

I think it is interesting to note that Friedan herself (the mother of feminism, essentially) was a staunch Marxist. 

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue35/boucher35.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1096

http://www.rense.com/general21/bettyfriedan.htm

What of 'social equality'? How will you achieve this 'social equality'? Are you going to ram this agenda down everyone's throat through government force, and social control?

According to webster online, the definition of fascism is:  "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Of particularly important note is the section that reads "economic and social regimentation".  Keeping in mind that feminism demands both economic, and social equality of the sexes, this begs the question:  'how will you attain this 'social and economic equality'?  Through use of the government. 

Political equality is something women in the USA already have.    So what is the purpose behind the feminist movement?

In light of these considerations, I am not a 'feminist.'  I am in favor of equal rights under the law for all people, regardless of sex.  Is this 'feminism'? No.  Not feminism by definition, anyway.

>>79
"Forcing employers to pay all employees equally is a stand for liberty, not against it."

Using force or coercion to do anything is not compatible with the ideas of liberty.  The idea behind libertarianism is to force them to do only as much as is necessary for the preservation of their other freedoms.  Affirmative action, and forcing employers to give equal pay is a sick violation of their rights.  If I have 10 dollars, and I decide I want some work done, and I hire out workers, I can and should be able to pay them whatever I want, provided they agree.  This is entirely voluntary, and if they don't like it, they don't have to take the deal.  The government has no place in economics but to tax away the sum necessary to provide police, court systems, and a military to provide for the common defense.  Everything else should be left up to private individuals.  The right to property is the right to use and disposal as you please.  This includes the right to pay someone to do work, provided they voluntarilly agree.  This also includes the right of the employer to say he will pay certain classes of people less, for whatever reason if he wants to.  It is his money.  Said classes of people don't have to accept the bargain, if they don't want.  Using force or coercion to manipulate wages is not libertarian.  In a free society, all interactions outside of those practically necessary for the preservation of this relatively free state are to be done in a manner that is free of coercion and violence.  This includes employee-employer negotiations.

>>75
"Also, you act like equal pay is some horrible travesty being forced upon employers."

Forcing an employer to do something against his will with his property is a violation of his property rights, regardless of whether or not you see this action as morally right.

"I'll summarize it: You pay one person less than another, you limit their freedom."

Employers and employees both have a right to engage or not to engage in trade or in employment as they wish, provided it is voluntary.  Forcing employers to do something with their property, or to manage it a certain way, regardless of whether or not you see it as 'moral' or not, is wrong.  The only exceptions to this are that you are not allowed to use said property in a way that violates another individual's rights.  For example, you would be allowed to purchase a gun.  You would not be allowed to use said gun to shoot someone, or use it to force them to do things.  This would obviously be against the law.  As long as said activity doesn't cause direct harm to another individual, it should be allowed, within reason.  This obviously includes the right to engage in voluntary trade with other individuals, provided it is voluntary from both sides, employer, and employee. 

"Someone makes you pay people without bias, they limit YOUR freedom."

Yes they will.  Part of your freedom is the right to property.  The right to property entails the right to use and disposal, as you please.  To tell someone they cannot do something with their property if that action does not harm another individual, is violating their right to use and disposal of said property (their rights to property.) A right is a freedom of action.  You are violating said freedom of action when you violate their right to use and disposal of said property as they see fit.

"Conclusion: humans living in societies limit their freedoms inevitably."

An employer who discriminates against his employees is not limmiting their freedom in any way.  It is not their property, and it is thus not their choice to decide what to do with it, until it has voluntarilly shifted hands from employer, to employee.  The employee is not forced to take the bargain with the employer, and is free to take his labor elsewhere if he pleases.  Since it is not the employees freedom of action that is being limmited, his rights are thus not being limmited, and he is thus free.  Your ideas are wrong.

"If you have a model where people's freedoms are not limited, yet they still coexist as some sort of cohesive group working for a common good, PLEASE LET ME KNOW."

http://www.lp.org/
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php