Feb
12
Women are usually considered an oppressed, dominated group. They are usually thought of as inferior to men. Even the great philosopher Aristotle held that men are superior to women. Nathaniel Branden in his article once accused that “Ayn Rand once wrote that no woman should aspire to be the President of United States as it would make her superior to all men” 1. While it is not at all clear that the profession of the President is superior to other ones, such politically incorrect views deserve all the attention it can get.
It is the task of this article to examine what Capitalism did to the status of women. Capitalism is blamed for everything from dowry to prostitution to work place sexual harassment. How much of it is true? If one gives all these accusations a moments thought, he would realize that beneath all this lies ignorance and anti-capitalist mentality.
Prostitution is one of oldest professions of the world. It is stupid to blame prostitution and all its effects on capitalism. What is implicit in that accusation is the realization that prostitution is basically a trade and in this special case, sex is traded for money. People stupidly think that if money and trade are abolished, they would put prostitutes out of business. Moreover, there is nothing wrong in prostitution as such. It is a trade, just like any other. Every human action is a trade, on a fundamental level. When a person chooses one course of action against another, he is trading his effort for the improvement in his state he wants to bring about.
A prostitute doesn’t physically infringe anyone’s personal freedom. She provides sex for people who are willing to pay for it. A prostitute wouldn’t have acted in the manner she did if she hadn’t expected to gain from it. The same goes for the man who approaches her for sex. It is a voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. If anyone is against the trade, he is free not to take part on it. What right does that person to prevent others from voluntarily trading with others? The illegalization of prostitution leads to a lot many anti-social people getting into that profession and a deterioration of the service people get from a prostitute.
Do an individual, or a collection of individuals under the banner of Government have the right to prevent two individuals trading with each other? Is morality to be enforced on the point of a gun? Is it possible to lead people to morality through coercion? To anyone who understands the sanctity of individual rights and personal freedom, the answer to these questions is a big No. If a person doesn’t want to have sex with a prostitute, he is free not to patronize her. He doesn’t have the right to decide for others. Anyone who wants to decide for others is a potential dictator.
Dowry is another case in point. People who blame Capitalism for dowry are totally ignorant of history. In the past polygamy was prevalent. It was only after women started to bring in wealth to the marriage, people started sticking to one wife. I shall quote Mises:
“As the idea of contract enters the Law of Marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement. Nowadays the position of the woman differs from the position of the man only in so far as their peculiar ways of earning a living differ. Woman’s position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the Law of Property it necessarily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights ever the wealth which she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage. That marriage unites one man and one woman that it can be entered into only with the free will of both parties that the rights of husband and wife are essentially the same — these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of married life.”
Dowry is also a case of voluntary trade for mutual benefit. Some might find it crass to link marriage to trade. In their eyes, marriage must be done solely out of love. They totally miss the point. No one is forcing anyone to pay dowry or accept it. If a girl wants a boy who loves her without any monetary ties associated with it, she is free to seek such a person. Then she should be willing to wait for such a person and accept him when she finds him. She would have to narrow her search. If she is consistent, she wouldn’t look at the job or income of the guy she is going to marry. That too would be crass and materialistic. She would marry solely for love!
Some people mistakenly say that dowry has made marriage a trade and bride a commodity. In the first place, marriage would be a trade even in the absence of dowry as people are trading sex and love to get back the same in return. In the second place, it is the bride’s family which pays dowry. Certainly, it is the groom who is treated as commodity here. It should also be noted that usually the bride’s family look at the job and income of the groom. Doesn’t that make it a trade? Doesn’t that make that girl a prostitute, as she is trading love and sex for money? Feminists usually say that marriage is slavery. But, as Murray Rothbard had pointed out, in most families the husband goes for work and looks after his wife. It certainly means that it is the husband who is treated as slave here.
Collectivists usually bring up the case of work place sexual harassment. They ask what would be done if the employer sexually harasses the employee in a libertarian society. What they fail to understand is that sexual harassment is a crime and the employer who sexually harasses his employee would be punished if the victim files a case and proves it. Law would be much more efficient in a libertarian society as the lawyers have both moral and financial incentive to be objective. In a statist society the lawyers have only a moral responsibility. Moreover, in a private organization it would be in the interest of the employer to avoid such incidents as it is expensive and would keep female employees away. In a government organization, that is not the case. What is implicit in the collectivists question is that they assume that in most cases, women submit to such harassment. If that is case, it would mean that women are trading sex for her salary, job and all the benefits which come with it. Doesn’t that make her a prostitute? Do these collectivists sympathize with prostitutes?
- Nathaniel Branden accused, Ayn Rand [↩]
25 Responses to “Women and Liberty”
Leave a Reply
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 8:40 pmWhy don’t you provide some sort of link to verify that Ayn Rand said something like that?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 8:56 pmProstitution is one of oldest professions of the world. It is stupid to blame prostitution and all its effects on capitalism.
When was male-prostitution invented or when was the first male-prostitute discovered?
Dowry is another case in point. People who blame Capitalism for dowry are totally ignorant of history. In the past polygamy was prevalent. It was only after women started to bring in wealth to the marriage, people started sticking to one wife.
Which part of History are you talking about? Have not you ever heard of Polyandry?
You are too much confused about this write up. I wonder why are you mixing your confused ideas with all the bigwig names you know?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:00 pmI have read that link many times, it doesn’t prove that Ayn Rand said so. Although it certainly prove that Nathaniel Branden accused her for saying so, and that also after her death. Why? Couldn’t he accuse her when she could answer him back?
Anyways, what is your intention to mention that thing to mention here, and what is your intention regarding this article?
What is your point which you want to make?
Plus care to explain why did you chose the title women and liberty for this article?
What sort of liberty and their relation with women you were trying to talk of?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:06 pmAlso you live in India, talk about Indian history, prove that before Dowry there were polygamy and after the system of dowry started, Polygamy stopped miraculously.
Also care to answer that although Dowry is well known in Muslims as meher, yet Muslims still follow polygamy, so why is this dichotomy with your version of history?
or is it like you are ignorant of any sort of history and present too?
Present Dowry law is
IPC-498a
Cognizable – The accused can be arrested and jailed without warrant or investigation
Non-Bailable – The accused must appear in the court to request bail
Non-Compoundable – The complaint cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner
The accused, on a woman’s one complaint, are considered guilty until proven innocent, and the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence in the courts. It is even more torturous that old ailing parents too are arrested prior to investigation. Is this not violation of Human Rights of Indian citizen?
When an FIR (First Information Report) under IPC section 498A (anti-dowry law) is registered by a woman, the accused – the husband and his old parents, brothers, sisters, relatives – are arrested and jailed without investigation.
It is total crap law, and it should be aborted, changed or whatever, yet that doesn’t make women liberated.
How will it liberate women? Because of Dowry and Sati and many other rituals, Women have suffered since long, its not yet better situation even now, So when you are talking of Women and Liberty, its ok you want to remove Dowry law, it is crap. but where is women liberation in that? Why don’t you mention this article as Men and liberty?
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:12 pmI didn’t say that in all individual cases polygamy stopped with the introduction of dowry. It was just that there was a general reduction in such instances . If you want to learn more about it, read the fourth chapter of Mises’ Socialism. I don’t know of any other sources which talk about this issue. I think we can’t question the intellectual honesty of Mises. He was a man of great integrity. I don’t know why it still persists in the case of Muslims. Maybe it has something to do with their religious beliefs.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pmOk, let me explain you some parts of history.
Dowry started as a loot. Looters and assualters after winning the state at which they used to attack used to loot wealth and women.
in order to refrain from fighting, people started making peace agreement and for those peace agreements, women were used to be presented to the attacking side alongwith wealth (if the defenders accepted that they will loose or cannot defend) And that is how dowry started.
Women were considered as chattels, a lower human being. And that was how they were treated, alongwith animals, horses, slaves and wealth, they were presented to the marauders. And then it took the form of Dowry.
Now if you can favor dowry by any means in its original sense, you may try for that.
Islam was first social movement in middle east which tried to liberate women. But now, islam itself is exploitative in some or many senses, but that is not because islam deteriorated, but because other cultures and systems improved much more and faster.
Christianity used to treat women as wytch and evil bringers, in Hindus, even at present women are considered as a bane. Care to explain the idea of killing a girl of age 20 just in order to fulfill a wish of becoming a father of a son?
Such an incidence took place in 2006 in Thane Mumbai Maharastra when a science teacher of a government school sacrificed his 20 year old girl because some fake demigod told him that if he sacrifice his girl, his wife will give birth to a son.
How will Rothbard explain this phenomenon?
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pmI am totally against such sacrifices. I don’t know why you brought this up. Such acts include the initiation of physical force and is hence evil.But I am totally for sex selections and legalization of dowry. The fact that I am for the legalization of dowry does not mean that I consider a person who accepts dowry as the highest exemplification of morality.Everything is trade and in a relationship the currency is virtues-Not money. What has Rothbard to do with this? Yes,he held somewhat similar views.
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:35 pmHaha.Why do you think in such terms? -That I am defaming some dead person.Take things lightly. I don’t think Nathaniel Branden would knowingly misrepresent her views in such a manner,as his own reputation would be at stake. A lot many other people too say the same.There is no online link available for that article.The wikipedia link says something like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
In a McCall’s magazine interview, Rand stated that while women are competent to be President of the United States, as a matter of psychology, no rational woman would enjoy being in that position (as a woman in charge of men); she later explained that it would be psychologically damaging to the woman.[39] She strongly opposed the modern feminist movement, despite supporting women needing careers and being the intellectual equals of men.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:38 pmDeadmanoncampus
Why cannot you clarify your intentions in the main article?
I have no god, what I am discussing about is not about rand, it is about your inability to prove something which you have mentioned.
Why did you used Mises and Rothbard and rand and for what?
Where is the clarity of the article? You have not explained yet what do you want to say by this article?
I am givingg you a chance, update the article, try to make a sense out of it.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:40 pmWhat legalization of dowry?
When you are unable to explain what is dowry, and what is that which makes people burn women and what is the difference between them then how can you state that legalize dowry?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:44 pma> Do you want to say that Rand was anti-women and considered women inferior to man?
b> do you want to say that dowry in the current scenario as it is applied is correct? or should there be any change? What should be that change? What exactly should be dowry? and how to maintain the sanctity of that dowry in the current scenario.
c> do you want to say that since Rothbard said that man are slaves because they work and women eats at home and does no work, hence all should consider men as slaves?
What do you think about homely works?
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:50 pma) The notion that women are inferior to men is implicit in Rand’s statement that no woman should aspire to be the President of US. I don’t think it needs much explanation.
2) The fact that some women are burned in the name of dowry doesn’t say anything of dowry as such. I personally am a person who won’t take dowry. But I don’t think if some people want to give dowry and some people want to accept it,they shouldn’t be stopped by a Government edict.
3) I don’t think all men are slaves.But in a lot many cases men go to work and look after their wives.Some of them do work at house too. So,they are in a particular sense, slaves.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:57 pmYou have not provided any proof about that false accusation from Nathaniel Branden over Ayn Rand, hence i would be editing it within minutes, you have five more minutes to present any proof.
Ok which law states that those who want to give monetary presentations or favours to their daughters at the time of marriage should be Arrested and punished?
The law is if there is any forced asked dowry, one may complain. and obviously whole dowry law and domestic violence law is crap and should be opposed, but that has nothing to do with your article, i am sure you are not even able to explain what is wrong with current dowry law and domestic violence law. As a matter of fact, these laws need proper changes so that it become justified and reasonable.
What percentage of such men you know personally, and care to provide some other source data too.
One more thing Deadmanoncampus
In fact Indian law properly claims that daughters should be provided their share in parental property if the parents want to favor her, and they can do it at any time including at the time of her marriage.
Although there are certain groups which promotes the idea in the masses that there should not be any monetary contract but there should be agreement on mutual consent for marriage, but it is not forced by any law, such groups just promote their idea with proper intentions without the usage of governmental help.
Dowry is crime only in sense when it is forcibly demanded, yet dowry law now a days is ill-processed because it provides less or no space for the accused part to put up the proofs for their innocence.
Greg Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pmShanu, I enjoy reading your articles because I think you have a good grasp of many libertarian issues. You seem to be well informed.
I am a bit surprised at your choice of liberty issues concerning women and the relations between the sexes, not that I disagree with you, but there is some difference in the issues that seem important in our respective cultures.
I can corroborate your attribution of the statement from Rand, and I must say that I am surprised that anyone would dispute this. Rand’s novels are full of references to men dominating women. Example, in “Atlas Shrugged” when Dagny wears the bracelet of Reardon metal she is described as looking more feminine because she wears a chain. Rand was a wonderful thinker and an original writer, but she was not always consistent, and many passages of her writing seem to show her own fantasy of a man who would rule her.
Regarding the slave-like position of a married man, I can think of dozens of men I have known who worked most of the days of most of their lives and gave everything to their family only to be divorced and abandoned later in life. Perhaps things are different in India, but unfortunately there seem to be similar problems in England and Japan.
I wish I had the time to discuss this at length. I look forward to other articles from you in the future on any subject related to liberty.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:59 amits not about disuputing, it is more about proving, there is no such article available, the authority controlling articles of Rand never issued any article which Nathaniel Branden mentioned. he might be true he might not be true, Shanu or you or anybody else cannot claim it as true. Even if he has taken it from wikipedia, he need to mention the link, as he did not mention the link for Nathaniel Branden’s article, i had to edit and add it up.
About Ayn Rand’s distinctive liking for BDSM is nothing surprising. Yet BDSM is not gender oriented.
if male consent fully chooses to be slave, consensual slavery is no wrong in free society.
But when someone talks of Dowry, and talks of history too, he should be clear about History and his point of opposition to dowry laws.
Furthermore, you picked up correctly, UK, is suffering with domestic violence laws since ages now. In India domestic violence law was introduced in 2007, and it will take more 50 years that the real sufferers will ever come to know about such laws, not that such laws are of any usage.
It doesn’t matter if this article which Shanu is co-relating with dowry problem has any relevance with US reader, with Indian reader it makes no sense. it is true that there are some cases of false dowry accusations, but there have been many cases of dowry killings too.
Anyways for dowry in Asian countries I gathered it up http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/dowry-the-other-facet.html
There is no comparison in between Japan/UK/US and India. About US and UK, US is much more fortunate in comparison to UK is suffering extremities.
Yet one can get some cases where wives actually harassed and exploited husbands.
And obviously laws need to be changed.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 3:51 amProstitution:
Agree with largely with what you say – however, the situation where prostitutes become victims is when prostitution is made illegal. Therefore, prostitutes get the “protection of contract enforcement” from other sources – who in return take the economic surplus and exert control over the prostitute (pimps and local mafia)
Dowry
I think you have this all wrong – unless you are looking at western society. Let’s consider India…
While dowry has existed for the longest of times – it came more into prominence from the 1700s as India deindustrialized and became more agrarian (a separate discussion if you don’t agree with this).
Looking from an Indian point of view, where villages with a few hundred people were at the core of Indian society, it was always important to diversify the gene pool. This meant that either the boys or the girls had to leave the village in order to achieve this. In a stable and prosperous India the system remained dynamic where there was reasonable inflow and outflow of young men looking for opportunties.
As economic opportunities dwindled, and manufacturing declined, young men stayed home and looked after farms.
Now, if there was a family with two children, one boy and one girl and the parent’s assets were land and gold, what would be a fair way to divide these assets?
Logically, the girl will get part of the liquid assets (gold) and the boy will inherit the land… this was a simple economic and fair choice that parents would make.
The system first failed in the 19th century with India’s biggest land grab… when within one generation millions of Indians lost their land as the system collapsed under the English for many reasons, including but not limited to Opium farming.
This system failed again after 1960 when dowry was made illegal, but land inheritance remained in favour of boys.
It took another beating when land inheritance was made equal in many states, yet the practice of dowry continued – tilting the balance in favour of girls… and then some it tilted again as dowry became a tool for extortion.
The point is that dowry became a problem when the government created bad systems.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 3:57 amOnly after amendment of Hindu laws in 2005, now women in have been provided the same status as that of men and she has a share in parental property in her own right just like the son have.
According to me, its all wrong. First of neither Son nor a Daughter can have any sort of right on parental property, its the right of parents to give any share to any of their children or not give anything to them, they may simply flow it off in charity or whatever.
There can be no right on property by means of birth. Property need to be earned or provided freely to someone by owner voluntarily.
Even the author has made same mistake. See legalization of dowry or announcing it illegal makes NO SENSE.
Since now Daughter have their own right in parental property, they can legally demand their share from the family. That is, dowry is legal.
Husbands cannot force for dowry, they may try to have a consensual deal letting the girl voluntarily provide her parental property share to make a new family.
properly speaking, there is nothing wrong in it but just one thing.
How can any son or daughter have any sort of Right on parental property when they just did not earn it?
They can own that property only in one case and that is parents provide them freely.
Now its upto parents, they may give all their property to the daughter, they may give it whole to son, they may give nothing to anyone or whatever, it is their free choice and right.
For me debarring the current anti-dowry-law which is heinously one sided and destructively dangerous for male counterpart and his family is more important issue than talking of Women Liberty and Dowry.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:12 amI am most certain that the author is NOT talking of India.
in India even now Christian women have no right over parental property and they cannot inherit any property, Muslim women also do not have any right over parental property, although they can inherit property. only Hindu act has been updated which provides girls a right on parental property, that is, they own some property right since their birth just like a son (of all religion does).
On first view, it is equality of genders, I agree it is equality of gender. Still i say it is corrupt law. There should be equality of gender, neither son nor daughter should have any right over Parental property. Let the parents decide what they want to do and how they want to save, spend, enjoy the property they created or owned, son and daughters both should have right to inherit property, and freedom to make their own earned property.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:13 amagree… although I have no legal foundations – the conflicts arise only when the parent(s) die(s) intestate… without a will…
…the children do not have a RIGHT to any property that the parent(s) have willed away.
Also, as far as I know, inheritance laws were amended by many states in the 1980s band onwards… 2005 could have been when all states adopted the amendments.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:17 amAs far as I know – that is exactly the current law. The problems largely arise when there is no written will.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:23 amSee galeo, these are not state laws but central laws, and specially they are personal laws, Hindu act, muslim act and Christian act all are different.,
The struggle started in 1979 and in 1980′s Hindus and Muslim women got right to inherit property, but they had no right on parental property as the son had since always. if parents want, they could give property to their daughters too. That is, in 1980′s Dowry actually became legal, since 1980′s parents started giving their daughters share if they want, legally to the daughter.
In 2005, Hindu act was further amended, and now Daughters have proper right in parental property, even if parents dont want to give their property to daughter, Daughters can go to court and file charges against parents just like son can and do. Daughters were better before because they could not loot their parents.
There is a twist over parent’s right to disinherit in form of “separate property” and Joint property”.
One can disinherit from separate property not from Joint property.
Muslim act has not been amended yet hence muslim women do not have right to parental property, they can inherit it, if parents want to give freely.
Christian women just cannot inherit property, if parents want to give, they will give to their son-in-law.
I think i will make a post over this issue.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:55 amThere is a twist over parent’s right to disinherit in form of “separate property” and Joint property”.
One can disinherit from separate property not from Joint property.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 5:06 amgot it… and I agree it has to be purely the will of the parents…
…what has made matters terrible is that in the last 20 years gold stagnated and real estate went up… for a system designed in the 1700s where inflation practically did not exist it was a fair system… parents could *choose* to give gold to their daughters and land to their sons… the problem is India has twisted laws that are unable to keep up with the vagaries in the economy…
Amandeep Singh Says:
August 19th, 2010 at 12:47 amhi, just add a share button to be shared all around the world…:)
Katherine Says:
May 8th, 2011 at 10:11 pm@Unpretentious Diva post 2
There have been male prostitutes as long as there have been female prostitutes. Think ancient Rome.