 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dagny Sharon and I'm in the local liberty movement This program is being taped live at Dagny's Freedom Festival in Englewood, California Today we have an excellent program by a good friend of mine and to introduce her. I give you Tom Cobb Thank you I've had the good fortune to know Wendy for a long time. I first met her and my first reaction Which would be kind of understandable. Oh, there's a pretty little girl Wrong this is a very formidable young lady. She has written freedom feminists and the state She's editor of the volunteerist. She has taken on personally the entire LA County Board of Supervisors I Admire her courage if not necessarily her taste. I mean you're known by the company you keep Wendy and but Wendy is going to speak on feminist history revisited down the Orwellian memory hole and We all know what that is presumably and if we don't I'm sure Wendy will be glad to elucidate Wendy Good afternoon Well this afternoon I intend to commit an act of heresy and Like any act it requires a context So let me first of all set the context before I explain my particular heretical views to you The context is of course libertarianism or that's part of the context and that as known as it will come to no surprise to any of you It's a non initiation of force The second is the definition of feminism and this is a little bit more complicated because there's vast Disagreement and debate about what feminism is. I've heard feminism related to everything from lesbianism to the Green Peace Movement But I think there's at least one definition that most people most women will agree on and that is that women As a class should be equal to men Now there are feminists who believe that women are biologically superior to men and should be treated such but they're very minimum So basically let's take that as a working definition of feminism women as a class should be equal to men as a class Now already with this definition as I'll tell you later. We're in deep trouble Just to find it this way as simply as it may seem Creates as many problems as it obviates But this is at but I'll get into that after I basically give you the history of what I consider to be the proper form of feminism The type of feminism that I advocate which is individualist feminism Now feminism as a movement in and of itself Started around 1830 there were individuals who worked and did very good work before that But as an organized force in America it started in the 1830s And when you're talking about this this organized force you're talking about abolitionism because that's where feminism sprang from Abolitionism was a radical anti-slavery movement in America which demanded the immediate Sensation of slavery on the grounds that every man every woman was a self-owner Which means that simply by being a human being there is something about being born human in that condition Which says that you have a right an unquestioned right and an alienable right to your own body and the fruits of your labor And when you're talking about abolitionism what you are talking about is William Lloyd Garrison and the liberator Because these were the two main William Lloyd Garrison was in fact the one who infused abolitionism into the anti-slavery movement One might think that anti-slavery called for the immediate cessation of slavery as a matter of course But there are various brands of anti-slavery Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery in the sense that I think in something like 1859 he called for the the gradual abolition of slaves in a hundred years Which means in 1959 or we would have been all seeing the end of slavery in America, which is a rather chilling thought There were anti-slavery people called for colonization It was William Lloyd Garrison who infused abolitionism the immediate cessation on the grounds of self-ownership into anti-slavery Now he also did one other thing with abolitionism, which was to fuse abolitionism with women's rights He had in I believe in the second volume of his periodical the liberator the volume number might be wrong But very early on in its 35 year career He had what was called a ladies department and in the ladies department right underneath that caption He had a slave woman kneeling in bondage and and piteously crying out am I not a woman and a sister That's where that phrase comes from and when you deal with women's rights What you're dealing with is the influence of it of it of William Lloyd Garrison and a vowed Libertarian in the terms of he was totally against government. He was called a no-government man He was totally against the use of force in human relationships And you're also dealing with the Quaker influence because overwhelmingly in abolitionism there was there was It's the roots were Quaker Basically as you go along in history it and it became more popular more and more people were assumed by it, but initially within America its roots were Quaker now Quakerism Even though everything is relative and you can't say that women's rights were respected by Quakers in the same sense that women's rights Are respected today nevertheless Quakerism did allow women to preach women were allowed to be ministers in the church They were treated as equals more or less in the church as opposed to Calvinism or Catholicism or other religions of the time so relatively speaking it was a bastion of women's rights So you have this fusion here abolitionism William Lloyd Garrison the main anti-slavery Paper liberator being an advocate of women's rights and you have the Quaker attitude of basically Comparatively women are women are human beings on equal basis at least religiously with men Now abolitionism freed women in two ways The first way could be expressed by Abby Kelly who said to paraphrase her We have we have learned a great deal and we owe a great deal to the slave for him trying to throw off his bond bondage We have found ourselves that we are securely fettered Women were led to say if in fact we're fighting for rights. Are we just fighting for black male rights? Are we fighting for human rights? Are we not subject to the same oppression that the black slave is? That was one way. They were ideologically prompted to ask this question and the second way was Women for the first time went out and lectured in public as as a strategy now I'd been done before on individual basis But as a strategy women going and giving a series of lectures traveling across the country These women were mobbed these women were assured that they would would never be married because in fact a lecture before a mixed company such as Such as we have here mixed me being male and female meant that no no man of any respect would marry them or touch them They were they were vilified in by the way. I hope that doesn't ruin my plan So I don't don't intend to get married myself being an anarchist but The first the first three women to do this were the Grimke sisters and Abby Kelly Even though I throw the the I could go through stirring passages of what these women put up with and what they and their heroism of breaking social taboos which were At least as significant as legal walls. It's very heroic struggle But I will for the sake of time and continuity not to mention my theme. I will continue now Abolitionists I don't want to give you the the impression that abolitionists were to a man fighting for women's rights Because this wasn't to at all William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Weld another figure that I can't go into but who is who has heroism in of himself We're very strong on women women's rights at least to the extent of saying that women must be allowed to participate They they are a strong moral force in this country and without them. We cannot have an effective anti-slavery crusade But many people in the anti-slavery movement said well first of all many people in the anti-slavery We're not for women's rights, but many who even were sympathetic toward that point of view said We're taking two issues here We're taking anti-slavery toward which many people would would feel a natural empathy and they were taking women's rights toward which Overwhelmingly the country is against and we're cementing them together and one one is acting to the detriment of the other Why don't we treat them as separate issues? Why don't we just totally divorce anti-slavery from women's rights? Fortunately in America or unfortunately depending on your view of strategy William Lloyd Garrison was was very effective in making sure the two came together Not so in England and a crisis was met at the world anti-slavery society meant which meant in London, England in 1840 now Lucretia Mott a fine fine old Quaker lady who was very effective in underground railroads and civil disobedience in terms of Anti-slavery along with William Lloyd Garrison were chosen as representatives of the New England Anti-slavery Society to attend the meeting in London What happened? They show up along with Elizabeth Katie Stanton and many other women who came across the ocean Which was no small feat in those days to attend the meeting. They were turned away from the door The British abolitionists of the British anti-slavery movement did not have a Garrison did not have a Theodore Weld to champion women's rights Women were not allowed to attend the meeting that they were elected as representatives to attend They were shut out eventually. They were allowed to sit in a balcony with a screen around them Now William Lloyd Garrison's response as the response of various other American men was to say we will sit in the gallery with The women we will not sit on the same floor That basically refuses to that that tries to push forth black rights while denying human rights at the same time What happened as a result of this and it's rather an irony of history is this this denial of women's rights led to one Of the most important events in women's history Well in American history when I say women's history by the way I fall into the trap that I've been accused of many times America is not the world when I say history I mean American history So one of the most important events in women's rights in American history, which is the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 Now this was a direct result of the London experience because Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton who both attendant attended and both were shattered By this experience of being denied access to the movement to which they've given their lives Formed at the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls and there are another significant thing happened Up until this point when I say that the two main influences on women's rights Were William Lloyd Garrison and Quaker Quaker ism Another thing that I'm implying by that is a strategy the strategy of moral suasion This was a strategy which said that because change must must occur in the hearts and souls and minds of men That's where the war is it's not in the in the legislatures. It's not in Senate It's not in Congress. It is within the hearts of men It's rather like the Gandhi attitude of the only demons that exist in the world are the demons within man's hearts And that's where the war must be fought At Seneca Falls Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pushed through a path when I say she pushed through she she presented a plat being any political I'm likely to to weigh my words She presented a platform Which basically said women should seek the vote women should seek political power There was a great deal of controversy over this Lucretia Mott representing the old guard Opposed it bitterly and I believe it passed by something like one or two votes a very very narrow margin to pass by But what it did was it it offered a split in strategy in women's rights for the first time in feminism for the first time Moral suasion versus political action Now something else happened very shortly after that Something which the United States has never recovered from every every facet of the United States of America is still being affected by it and Feminism perhaps more than many others libertarianism shirt and certainly was almost dealt a death blow because of it and that was a civil war There is no event in American history that has been as catastrophic as the American war American civil war Feminists overwhelmingly supported the North in that war Even though many of them were southern the Grimke sisters for example came from South Carolina One of the rabid if you think think of deep south if you think of the ones that that basically were were the rabid southern Southern states you think of Georgia. You think of South Carolina. They were from South. They're over nevertheless They overwhelmingly supported the North the only exception that I found of a major feminist who did not sub subvert and subordinate all feminist goals to the Civil War has been Susan B. Anthony and When you think of it the outcome of the Civil War should have been a victory for feminism after all Slavery was abolished and they linked their cause very and their and their Consequence very closely to the slave and the Republican Party was was the one that that was the victor the Republican Party being the anti-slavery party So that their friends there's anti-slavery friends like Wendell Phillips Was now in a position of power It should have been something that the feminists benefited from but in fact it was it was a disaster for feminism Because what did people say now their friends in the Republican Party said this is not the hour of women This is the hour of the Negro The 13th the 14th and the 15th amendment were given top priority by all the anti-slavery people and women who came and said but Not only does the 13th 4th and 15th amendment not benefit women It introduces for the first time into the male into the Constitution the word male The word male was introduced for the first time into the Constitution after the Civil War and this outraged feminists totally And what happened here and where I will end for For the moment my history of feminism in general is that there was a schism There was a schism within mainstream feminism as well But in terms of broad broad categories and I must be forgiven for making generalizations in a very short period of time Some of the generalizations are always inaccurate to some degree, but I believe that that that basically this there was three general Paths that feminism took mainstream feminism became overwhelmingly political the drive was one goal the vote Socialist feminists although they would not call themselves that at the time perhaps But ones that tended toward what we call socialism became known as social feminists during the progressive era or even before They were the ones against child child labor there for the pure foods food act They were the ones that basically pushed through a lot of legislation of that sort What we call individualist feminists became involved in two movements Least successfully they became involved in the labor movement most successfully They became involved in the free love movement and that's what I want to discuss for just a moment because this will set the context of what Individuals feminism is and what I what I mean when I call myself an individualist feminist now free love has been Defined mostly by its enemies Which is never a good way to get an understanding of what something means So let me let me give you basically a very simple statement of what free love is Free love is the statement that all sexual matters as long as they do not involve force are up to the individuals involved marriage divorce legitimacy claims Abortion contraception birth control of any sort are between the individuals involved the state has absolutely no business whatsoever And people's sexual lives as again again with the exception of force being brought in now I Can't do anything in this short a period of time except give you a flavor of how rich and deep and and and stirring and helmet How much fun this tradition really is? So let me let me pick out two incidences to let you know You know what you're missing out on if you have not read in the in the background of individuals feminism There was a periodical called Lucifer the lightbearer I'm sure great title great title Lucifer being the one who who bought fire like Prometheus bought fire down to Knowledge down to earth and like Prometheus paid the price of being cast out of heaven and into the fiery pits Now Lucifer the lightbearer was put out from Valley Falls, Kansas by a man named Moses Harman who had a daughter named Lillian Harman Lillian Harman fell in love with and married. I believe the contributing editor though. We might have tights types that as well A man named Edwin Walker Lillian was 16 years old. They decided that they would get married without the benefit of clergy or of the state At the age of 16, she was thrown in jail as was he They were the first couples in America thrown in jail for violation of the marriage laws if you ever want to want to model a marriage after after a Ceremony or just want to read a very stirring account of something you should read the marriage ceremony It ends with Moses Harman declaring I refuse to give away my daughter for I wish her always to be the owner of her Own person great stuff really good stuff Now another part of our tradition of individualist feminism is the word edited by Ezra Haywood and the period of that is about the 1870s Oh, by the way, Lucifer the lightbearer was also in that same same general period to give you a context in time Now Ezra Haywood was imprisoned for Cupid's yolks. Cupid's yolks was his birth control pamphlet and it was to put it in in Blunt terms boring. It was one of the most boring pamphlets. I've read in this period His main way of achieving birth control was abstinence Nevertheless for this pamphlet the man was thrown in jail was arrested and thrown in jail Not only was he thrown in jail, but several people who sold the pamphlets very and and rather prominent figures in society were thrown in jail He was released after a massive petition was was Presented to the president and he was he was there upon released to show you the spirit of the man. He was thrown in jail again By the way, the law under which he was thrown in jail was a Comstock law Anthony Comstock One of the truly evil figures in American history who passed a law Which had prohibited the mailing of obscenity in America without defining what obscenity was but whatever it was It included birth control material and contraceptives So As we're here with thereafter Immediately advertised in the word a contraceptive device called the Comstock syringe He was he was arrested again And what I want to impress upon you is not that these people had a sense of humor what I want to impress upon you This is this is the 1870s We are told about Margaret Sanger and who's rather socialistic in many of her aspects and what we we hear about the heroism of these people And they were heroic. I don't mean to take anything away from these people They fought very strong battles and they took risks and they paid a price What I'm saying is this is the 1870s the last issue of the word in Israel. He would Israel. Heywood's the word his wife Angela Heywood wrote an article Proclaiming the right of every woman to abortion on the grounds of self ownership that she owned her own body Now I want you to pause for a second. This is the 1890s. We're not talking about Margaret Sanger We're not talking about the progressive era in 1920s or we're talking about very early period and we're talking about pioneers We're talking about really really breaking social taboos. Think about the Grimke sisters lecturing think about Angela Heywood Think about Lillian Harmon going to jail And when we talk about an Orwellian memory hole, that's what I mean These women you'll have books and books written about minor socialist figures As far as I know there is one book that even has a chapter on Lillian Harmon And that's not because there isn't material there. I've researched it and if I had more time I would write the book myself But to get on to my theme and to become heretical at last As I promised at the beginning of my talk I want to say that there is no necessary connection between libertarianism and feminism My definition of feminism is that women as a class should be equal to men as a class Now when I say there is no give me the benefit of the doubt those those of you you who are who are now Dismissing when I say give me a benefit of the doubt for about 10 minutes and I'll explain what I'm talking about Now when I said there was trouble with the definition women as a class should be equal to men as a class I think there are two problems with that at least two problems. One is the idea of class Now different political theories have different class structures different theories of what is a class and the class really is nothing more than a group of people Banded together by some arbitrary standard. I could class people. I could make a class of redheads on the standard If who has red hair I could make a class of people under 18. It's merely just a category category defined by some standard Now in libertarianism the class analysis libertarianism being the non initiation of force and the political Philosophy which is based on self ownership the class analysis since classical liberalism since friends open Humber long Traditional history is that the political means is opposed to the economic means there is a political class And there is an economic class the political class is that which which gathers wealth Through taxation through the use of force the economic class is the one that produces Very clear distinction now There's a problem with this in terms of looking at women as a class Because women fit into either category women can be politicians women can also be productive members of society Marxism has a similar problem. They define class as with reference to the means of production Now by this you can either be a capitalist or you can be a labor you can control the means of production or you can be exploited by it Same problem women can be a capitalist and they can be laborers Now Marxism has come up with its with Marxist feminists have come up with a parallel theme a parallel Political structure to Marxism to explain this which is called patriarchy Now I could incorporate patriarchy into libertarianism, but quite frankly patriarchy unlike the political means does not necessarily use force And I don't see how it can be integrated Moreover since libertarianism says self ownership Means that every human being simply by being a human being has all the rights any human being can have It leaves absolutely no place for women's rights gay rights black rights. You ask are these people human beings? Yes, they have all the rights that you don't need this extra qualifier women's rights black rights gay rights. There are human rights Now having posed this puzzle Let me try to unravel it and tell you why I consider myself a feminist And I want to make a distinction here between women's rights and feminism women's rights is Is the statement that women should have equal rights under just law This is not necessitated by libertarianism libertarianism does not necessitate that we say women should have equal rights under just law anymore than it says necessitates that Australians should have equal rights under just law what necessitates it is government oppression Government has selectively oppressed certain classes of people in its history and just as we we do not have rich men's rights Rich rich white man's rights because they've never been necessary governments never oppressed rich white men On the other hand equally we need black rights because hysterical historically government has oppressed blacks We need women's rights because historically women has have been oppressed And what it is really is a sort of division of labor and defensive rights are so specialization Many people are oppressed. We all we all know that They're oppressed to different levels And in different different cases in different circumstances it changes with history And to the extent that you want to attack the oppression of government You can't simply go out and say i'm going to attack oppression You have to have some focus you have to say some law some event Some class and what this is is a sort of specialization And libertarians I submit to you must be pro-women's rights simply because government is oppressing or has I I'm very aware of the objection that women now are a privileged class And I agree with that that objection but have historically Attacked women's rights so I submit to you that libertarians must be for women's rights simply because it's a specialization of being For rights in general and government has created the need for that specialization But this is different than feminism There are many books That have no necessary implications For law or rights at all It's how to assert yourself with men how to be a single mother how to be successful in business How to coordinate your wardrobe everything from that to to basic to uh, how to change your psychological being How to how to confront Feelings of inferiority in the culture whatever things that are what I call cultural or social change books that have really no legal implication whatsoever What they what they aim at is a changing attitude in society toward women It's like racism versus black rights As libertarians every person in this room must be for black rights to the extent blacks are oppressed by government They must be for black rights and make a special category saying that I am for black rights They don't necessarily have to be anti-racist I would be upset with them if they're not but I wouldn't say it's a violation of libertarian principle For someone to have have in their mind an idea that blacks are somehow Biologically inferior is a wrong idea. I think but I don't think it's a violation of anyone's rights Just as to have in their mind that I am biologically inferior Or that I should not be given a certain job because women after all can't handle stress You know they had that time of the month or whatever Is is a rather lamentable attitude never the right is not a violation of my rights So To recap what I'm saying Libertarianism is a political philosophy which advocates rights injustice And to that extent one must if one is a libertarian be totally for women's rights Feminist is an is a is a an attitude or a philosophy that champions fairness in human behavior A fair attitude toward other people a sense of what what we what you want to call common decency perhaps And to that extent one need not be a them be need not be a feminist if one is a libertarian I think if one has a has a sense of justice That that's not merely abstract, but tends to go into your heart and soul Then you should consider feminism very very And anti-racism and things like that very deeply Now Many people say that the free market will cure The the unfairness which women experience from society that's usually thrown up as a as a cure for this dichotomy between Women's rights being violated and social change And I'm really I'm rather skeptical about that. I believe that will go a great great Distance toward curing unfairness toward blacks and unfairness toward women But I'm skeptical of it on two points First of all first of all the free market does not say that people's values will be rational The free market does not say that we will all be reasonable human beings All the free market says is whatever our values are they will be maximized by the free market For example, people will be fundamentalist christians if there were a free market today I fully believe that there would be calvinists out there and their Values will be maximized the maximum number of bibles the maximum printing presses without obstruction by government the other reason is that Economic arguments really don't work In all cases I've recently gone down to the south quite a bit on business and there was a country club That's it's very posh that that i've gone to on business Where you you pay two hundred dollars three hundred dollars I don't know what it is a month to belong to at the age of 40 you have the option of paying thirty thirty thousand dollars to join Now I've heard the argument that slavery eventually would have been phased out by economic means And and like saying that unfairness toward the woman toward women would be abolished by the market. I think that's largely true however From the the experience of the south and the country club, and I'm not anti south I like the south very much. It's just a point that I think has some validity. There is a certain prestige and elegance To having the aristocratic Lifestyle which jefferson for example who had slaves and was against slavery maintained Because there's there's simply a prestige and a certain lifestyle which probably would make slavery something that would continue To some degree very limited. So i'm not i'm not totally convinced that the free market will cure things What I think will cure things is a change as will you moi garrison said in the hearts and souls of men And this is something that has to be done through an education process that cannot be done with at the point of the gun Which is which is of course law which is of course legislation You must change the hearts and souls of men. You must go back to pre 1848 feminism when moral suasion was was The strategy now To put it in a different manner There's a sense in which freedom is true There's a sense in which you can logically deduce The nature of man and natural rights There's also a sense in which freedom is beautiful There's a sense in which it touches the heart the emotions the possibility the sparkle the optimism in man And to put it very succinctly i'm a libertarian and for women's rights because it is true I am a feminist because I think the attitude is fair and it and appeals to common decency I am also concluding because the sign is being held up which says i'm out of time. Thank you I think there are a little bit of time for question and answers Ah, yes Oh, uh, I will put it in the next one in one of the upcoming issues of the volunteers which I which I edit So if this is this is a subscription drive you're hearing right here Yes Oh, I meant the same thing I think it's I would have no discomfort in terms of exchanging your word for mine Oh, sure, absolutely, but the thing is what i'm saying is a free market will tend to minimize on fairness So that that great example by soul of you know, if someone who provides a basketball team will not Discriminated against against blacks, you know that great free example But but the fact is that I do not for a second believe that it will eliminate it. It will minimize it Bigotry in some cases bigotry will be rewarded in a small town where most people are racists To be an anti-racist might lose a great deal of business if you hired a black to be a clerk in your store You know it free market really does not say standards of common decency will be in play all it says is rights will not be violated So