Markets Empower Women

Market-driven technological and scientific innovations heighten women’s material standard of living, promote individual empowerment, reduce sexism and other forms of collective prejudice, and foster cultural change…

image

Over the last 200 years, economic progress has helped to bring about both dramatically better standards of living and the extension of individual dignity to women in the developed world. Today the same story of market-driven empowerment is repeating itself in developing countries.

Competitive markets empower women in at least two interrelated ways. First, market-driven technological and scientific innovations disproportionately benefit women. Timesaving household devices, for example, help women in particular because they typically perform the majority of housework. Healthcare advances reduce maternal and infant mortality rates, allowing for smaller family sizes and expansion of women’s life options. Second, labor market participation offers women economic independence and increased bargaining power in society. Factory work, despite its poor reputation, has proven particularly important in that regard.

In these ways, markets heighten women’s material standard of living and foster cultural change. Markets promote individual empowerment, reducing sexism and other forms of collective prejudice.

Women’s empowerment in many developing countries is in its early phases, but the right policies can set women everywhere on a path toward the same prosperity and freedom enjoyed by women in today’s advanced countries.

Learn more…

The Real-Life Handmaid’s Tale Happening Around the World Today

Global panic about population growth has led to millions of forced sterilizations that continue to this day…

image

This week, viewers will get another chance to submerge themselves in the dystopian future created by Margaret Atwood. The Handmaid’s Tale, based on the novel about the government forcing women to bear children to counter a declining population, resonated with audiences across the world.

However, the reverse situation — government coercing people to have fewer or no children — has been happening around the world for decades, and it ought to generate just as much outrage.

Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb incited global panic with claims that out-of-control population growth would deplete resources, bringing about widespread starvation. 

Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh and India — as well as China’s draconian “one child” policy.

In 1975, officials sterilized 8 million men and women in India alone, and In 2012, India’s Supreme Court found that “unrealistic targets have been set for sterilization procedures with the result that non-consensual and forced sterilizations are taking place.”

The sheer scale of this authoritarian nightmare is difficult to imagine, but tyrannical population-control measures are not only repugnant but also senseless.

Since Ehrlich began preaching about overpopulation-induced Armageddon, the number of people on the planet has more than doubled. Yet yearly, famine deaths have declined by millions. Recent famines are caused by war, not exhaustion of natural resources. As production increased, prices fell, and calorie consumption rose. Hunger is in retreat.

The evidence isn’t on the overpopulation alarmists’ side. More people can mean more prosperity. Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the ultimate resource.

And, interestingly, many people now worry that the world will produce too few, rather than too many, children — echoing the situation in the dystopian Gilead.

So while you’re watching season 2 of , keep in mind that the reverse of The Handmaid’s Tale is just as horrifying — and it has supporters trying to make it a reality.

Learn more…

Freedom — Not Socialism — Drives Gender Equality

International Women’s Day traces its history to the rise of global socialism in the early 1900s, but the reality of centrally planned economics is shockingly sexist, no matter how much lip service was paid to gender equality….

image

Today is International Women’s Day, a holiday that emerged post-Bolshevik Revolution and traces its roots to socialism both in the United States and abroad. However, contrary to popular belief, the origins of socialism are not as progressive as many of its adherents believe — certainly not on the point of women’s equality — and wherever socialism has been enacted, it is women’s needs that have been forgotten first.

Socialism was arguably a reactionary response to how the Industrial Revolution transformed society. Industrialization created a class of nouveau riche who gained wealth through market transactions rather than by birthright, while factories brought women into the labour force en masse, granting them economic independence and bargaining power that altered family dynamics and disturbed old-fashioned sensibilities.

Socialism presented an alternative to the unprecedented social mobility and rapid changes of the industrial age, and many prominent socialists demanded a return to ancient values, including traditional gender roles.

In fact, Friedrich Engels, who co-founded Marxist theory alongside Karl Marx, lamented capitalism’s equalizing effects on the genders, believed that the rise in women breadwinners married to homemaking husbands was not only “insane” but also “unsexes the man and takes from the woman all womanliness.” Such a reversal of traditional gender roles, Engels continued, “degrades, in the most shameful way, both sexes, and, through them, Humanity.”

With Marxist thought-leaders like Engels asserting that men should not participate in domestic activities, women were expected both to work outside the home and to do all the housework as well. The state provided childcare, but the waiting list was often long.

As managers of the household, women felt the shortages’ sting first and it fell to them to find substitutes for everyday goods. There was a severe lack of food, baby formula, housing, and just about everything else. And in centrally planned economic systems without any market incentive to fulfill human needs, it is women’s needs that were forgotten first.

Economic planners diverted resources away from producing anything considered feminine, and therefore frivolous and bourgeois. Right up until the fall of communism in the Eastern Bloc countries, communist factories failed to manufacture even the most basic items for women, such as sanitary products. Ordinary women’s sanitary products became sought-after items on the black market and most women made do with improvised substitutes. Women often sewed their own clothes or improvised beauty products from kitchen items, even though anyone who looked “too nice” was likely to be investigated.

Further, Communist officials saw women as just another means of punishing men, rather than as individuals with distinct identities.

At least five million prisoners toiled in the Soviet Union’s Gulag forced labor camp system — created under Lenin and massively expanded under Stalin —toiled in the camps at any given time during the system’s peak from 1936 to 1953, mining radioactive material, hauling logs barefoot in winter, or performing other forms of slave labor. Female Gulag inmates were almost always sentenced for the alleged crimes of their husbands or fathers, and in addition to the other terrors of the labour camps, also endured institutionalized sexual violence.  

Operational Order of the Secret Police No. 00486, “About the Repression of Wives of Traitors of the Motherland and the Placement of Their Children,” stated “women married to husbands at the time of their arrest are to be arrested…[and]…imprisoned… no less than five to eight years,” and one of the few ways for a woman to avoid arrest alongside her husband was, perversely, to accuse him of treason before anyone else did.

Upon a mother’s arrest, the Soviet system declared her children orphans and sent them as far away as possible. In the state-run orphanages, children were taught to feel shame and loathing for their parents, and, after regaining freedom a woman would often never learn of her children’s fate. 

There is no shortage of soaring communist rhetoric on gender equality, but that cannot make up for the pervasive sexism under central planning. Capitalism, on the other hand, has not just liberated women from the fields but helped society to see them as individuals.

Capitalism reduces the oppression rigidly imposed gender roles because embedded within market exchange itself is the idea that each individual should be free to pursue her self-interest. Market participation also increases women’s bargaining power within society, empowering them to lobby for legal equality and greater freedom. 

Learn more…

The Intellectual Mothers of Libertarianism

The birth of the modern American libertarian movement can arguably be traced to the work of three women…

image

Many years ago, thoughtful, well-intentioned, educated people in the United States all understood that socialism was the future. The average citizen might have retained a quaint belief in the American system of free enterprise, limited government, and individual rights, but among the cognoscenti — academics, artists, newspaper and radio pundits — it was widely recognized that the capitalist experiment had run its course. The overwhelming consensus was that the coming century would see economies managed by benevolent experts: the chaotic, dog-eat-dog competition of the market would give way to rational central planning.

History has been unkind to the old conventional wisdom. But the intellectual sea change preceded the visible collapse of socialist economies. The first real sign of the resurrection of the classical liberal idea came with the publication in 1943 of three groundbreaking books unabashedly defending individualism and free-market capitalism.

Almost as unorthodox as the books’ contents, in the climate of the 1940s, were their authors — Rose Wilder LaneIsabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand.

Each of these three remarkable women was an original thinker in her own right. But each also made a mark as a great popularizer of liberal ideas.

Learn more…

Women’s Rights and Liberty

March is Women’s History Month, and today (March 8th) is International Women’s Day. What better time to remember the role women played in launching the libertarian movement, as well as the role women with libertarian values have played in advancing women’s rights?

image

It’s no accident that feminism (and abolitionism) emerged out of the Industrial Revolution and the American and French revolutions. The equality and individualism that underlay the emergence of capitalism and republican government in the 18th century naturally led people to start thinking about the individual rights of women and slaves.

Many women involved in the American abolitionist movement took up the feminist banner, grounding their arguments in both cases in the idea of self-ownership, the fundamental right of property in one’s own person.

That classically liberal, individualist strain of feminist thought continued into the 20th century, as feminists fought not just for the vote but for sexual freedom, access to birth control, and the right to own property and enter into contracts.

Though, unfortunately, many contemporary feminists are far from being libertarians, a libertarian must necessarily be a feminist, in the sense of being an advocate of equality under the law for all men and women. 

Read more….

Women’s Equality Day

image

Happy Women’s Equality Day! On this day in 1920, women were granted the right to vote when the 19th amendment was certified by law. In honor of this occasion read Cato research on feminism and women in the libertarian movement. 

A so-called “libertarian moment” can only be helped along by expanded appeal among women, and among feminist-minded folks of all genders. Individual rights are at the heart of feminism. It’s time for libertarians to reclaim that.” — Elizabeth Nolan Brown at libertarianismdotorg

A libertarian must necessarily be a feminist, in the sense of being an advocate of equality under the law for all men and women.” — David Boaz in huffingtonpost