Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Was Ludwig Von Mises a Feminist?

By Robert Wenzel

Over at FEE.org, Jeffrey Tucker is out with an article titled, The Feminisim of Ludwig Mises. He  concludes in the article:
Let us take up his call to take the situation of women seriously, to discover value where it has been overlooked. Mises was a feminist before it was cool. All free marketers should be too.
From my perspective, the article does not give the full sense of Mises' views on women in society and feminism, which leads Tucker to a wrong conclusion. Mises was not a feminist.

Tucker writes in his article, which includes a quote from Mises' book Socialism.:
Mises reconstruction of the history of sexual relations puts a fine point on what the principle of violence meant for the status of women in history. Here he sounds positively Friedanian (see Betty Friedan’s 1963 bookThe Feminine Mystique written a half century ago):
Unlimited rule of the male characterizes family relations where the principle of violence dominates. Male aggressiveness, which is implicit in the very nature of sexual relations, is here carried to the extreme. The man seizes possession of the woman and holds this sexual object in the same sense in which he has other goods of the outer world. Here woman becomes completely a thing. She is stolen and bought; she is given away, sold away, ordered away; in short, she is like a slave in the house. During life the man is her judge; when he dies she is buried in his grave along with his other possessions. With almost absolute unanimity the older legal sources of almost every nation show that this was once the lawful state of affairs.
Although Tucker does state that Mises was reconstructing history, he fails to continue the quote, which clearly shows that Mises wasn't talking about modern day man.

In the same paragraph that Tucker quotes, Mises goes on to say (my highlights):
The conception afforded by the old laws and law books of the relations between man and woman is not a theoretical speculation of unworldly dreamers. It is a picture direct from life and reproduces exactly what men, and women too, believed of marriage and intercourse between the sexes. That a Roman woman who stood in the "manus" of the husband or under the guardianship of the clan, or an ancient German woman who remained subject to the "munt" all her life, found this relation quite natural and just, that they did not revolt against it inwardly, or make any attempt to shake off the yoke—this does not prove that a broad chasm had developed between law and practice. It only shows that the institution suited the feeling of women; and this should not surprise us. 
This makes it clear that Mises was far from making "a positively Friedanian (see Betty Friedan’s 1963 book The Feminine Mystique)" statement about modern conditions.

Indeed, Mises in the same chapter that Tucker quotes from makes clear that he believes modern day marriage has ended the ancient violence against women:
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; the servant becomes the married wife entitled to demand from the man all that he is entitled to ask from her. Step by step she wins the position in the home which she holds today. 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. The remnants of man's privileges have little importance. They are privileges of honour. The wife, for instance, still bears her husband's name.
What did Mises really think of feminism? Again in the same chapter Tucker quotes from, Mises wrote:
 The attacks launched against it by the Feminism of the Nineteenth Century seemed much more serious. Its spokesmen claimed that marriage forced women to sacrifice personality. It gave man space enough to develop his abilities, but to woman it denied all freedom. This was imputed to the unchangeable nature of marriage, which harnesses husband and wife together and thus debases the weaker woman to be the servant of the man. No reform could alter this; abolition of the whole institution alone could remedy the evil. Women must fight for liberation from this yoke, not only that she might be free to satisfy her sexual desires but so as to develop her individuality. Loose relations which gave freedom to both parties must replace marriage.

The radical wing of Feminism, which holds firmly to this standpoint, overlooks the fact that the expansion of woman's powers and abilities is inhibited not by marriage, not by being bound to man, children, and household, but by the more absorbing form in which the sexual function affects the female body. Pregnancy and the nursing of children claim the best years of a woman's life, the years in which a man may spend his energies in great achievements. One may believe that the unequal distribution of the burden of reproduction is an injustice of nature, or that it is unworthy of woman to be child-bearer and nurse, but to believe this does not alter the fact. It may be that a woman is able to choose between renouncing either the most profound womanly joy, the joy of motherhood, or the more masculine development of her personality in action and endeavour. It may be that she has no such choice. It may be that in suppressing her urge towards motherhood she does herself an injury that reacts through all other functions of her being. But whatever the truth about this, the fact remains that when she becomes a mother, with or without marriage, she is prevented from leading her life as freely and independently as man. Extraordinarily gifted women may achieve fine things in spite of motherhood; but because the functions of sex have the first claim upon woman, genius and the greatest achievements have been denied her.
Clearly, Mises understood that feminism goes beyond the basic treatment of women as equals with men before the law and introduces socialist concepts and a anti-marriage position.

.In the same chapter from which Tucker quotes, Mises wrote:
So far as Feminism seeks to adjust the legal position of woman to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances—so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of Socialism. For it is a characteristic of Socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavour, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature.
I repeat, Mises was far from a feminist or a "positively Friedanian" sounding.

Friedan organized the August 26, 1970 national Women's Strike for Equality that included a demand for government financed childcare centers and a demand for government to get involved in "the prevalent problem of unequal pay for women’s work."

Feminists since Friedan's day have gotten even more radically interventionist and anti-marriage, and greater men-haters:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." — Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.
Mises would certainly have nothing to do with them. It flies in the face of his view that modern day marriage is a contract between man and woman that provides for equal rights under the law. The honest scholar that he was, Mises did mention the points that he believed feminists made that were legitimate, but he also understood how feminists were going beyond the legitimate call for equality before the law for women, that they were (and still are) advocating policies that are "a spiritual child of Socialism."

As Tucker points out in his article, Mises was a true gentlemen and civilized man. Mises recognized talented females and promoted them, but don't mistake this decency as an advocacy on Mises' part of current day feminism. Mises wasn't a feminist in his day and he certainly wouldn't be supportive of their current anti-marriage, man-hating views.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

14 comments:

  1. The cornerstone to any decent civilization is to allow women to vote as per their respective husbands.
    .
    Anything else is utter chaos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So 1934 German society was more decent than 1969 Swiss society?

      Delete
    2. Bingo Anon. He's just reading off the politically correct playbook that the Western world is brainwashed with. But I'd take it a step further. How about abolish voting PERIOD? How? Anarcho-capitalism. We've already seen that a small government NEVER stays small. The US started that way and now it's the biggest empire in the world!

      "Indeed, Mises in the same chapter that Tucker quotes from makes clear that he believes modern day marriage has ended the ancient violence against women:"

      Ok, now that this obsession with "violence against women" is now satisfied thanks to marriage (although why any man would marry in the Anglo world is beyond me since a man has ZERO rights in family court and can go to jail on a mere accusation of rape) how about we stop looking at men as disposable utilities for women's glorification or the government's meat grinder?

      Delete
    3. What I really don't get is how blind people are with this "violence against womne" nonsense. As a libertarian I believe we should be concerned with state violence against ALL HUMANS. The state has caused more misery, starvation, torture, and murder than all the private violence combined by many magnitudes. Let's get away from this gynocentric silliness (which is little more than state sanctioned BS from special interest groups) and start thinking about ways to create a society without the state.

      Are people really THIS stupid in that they can't see beyond the Idiot Box yet?

      Delete
  2. LOL at this quote:

    "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

    Cronin does realize that most divorces favor the woman right? At least in my research most men hardly can get full custody of their children unless the woman is proven red-handed to be a criminal or work in the adult entertainment industry. I'm sure Cronin wouldn't want to shoot that golden goose now would she?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for this dissection RW. I'm really appalled at the academic disengenuity of Tucker & Reisenwitz, but more so Tucker as I have come to expect a low standard in argument from Reisenwitz.

    All I can say, is "thank you" to writers like Karen Kwiatkowski and Karen De Coster that actually do their part in holding up quality, libertarian oriented writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've expected very little from Tucker for years.

      Delete
  4. Weird! I have been reading this book for the first time, and I just made it through the section on feminism which Tucker is referring to. I would have to say, I agree with Bob's take that Tucker is taking the passage out of context, and positing a view which Mises didn't indicate he supported:

    "It flies in the face of his view that modern day marriage is a contract between man and woman that provides for equal rights under the law. The honest scholar that he was, Mises did mention the points that he believed feminists made that were legitimate, but he also understood how feminists were going beyond the legitimate call for equality before the law for women, that they were (and still are) advocating policies that are 'a spiritual child of Socialism.'"

    As a side note, Bob your continuing coverage of the ridiculous Seattle councilwoman Sawant is what inspired me to take on the book. There are plenty of obvious moral conundrums which make socialism absurd on face. However, many out there don't seem to understand or care about the immorality of that form of social organization- and, in fact have voted in a person who proudly calls herself a socialist. So I wanted to read the work which so many Austro-libertarians have referred to as the ultimate take-down of the concept of socialism.

    The book, so far, has been a very tough read for me, and I think I may have to go through it a few times to really soak it up. (See ya in a few years, right?!) Don't ask me why I choose to read it right before bed...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reading before bed allows the brain to engage in DC deluttering or filtering mode while you sleep so that you absorb more later. Better to sip than gulp down a bottle of water.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Modern-day feminism has done little but turn far too many women into termagants and harpies that no sane man wants anything to do with. Then, after all the vitriol launched against marriage, these same termagants and harpies use the fact that men don't want to marry them as more proof of how immature and terrible men are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of them are not only childish and petty but some are even criminal thanks to it. I tell you, every damned thing the state touches turns to poison. It even infects the human mind and soul like a virus!

      Delete
  7. Women are the great protectors of children, physically and morally.
    Once that protection is gone. The child can more easily be inducted into the service of the state.
    Without the experience of a loving mother, the child can more easily be turned into an expendable killing machine for the state.

    By trivializing motherhood and family, by exaggerating the value of market place work, a larger tax-base is created... more tax-serfs...

    The CIA is fully invested in the radical feminist-gay rights agenda and all its many minions will say their piece, as needed...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By trivializing motherhood and family, by exaggerating the value of market place work, a larger tax-base is created... more tax-serfs..."

      Bingo. And that is why radical feminism is state-socialist. State socialists don't care about any group of people as anything other than resources to use.

      At some point in the future, there will likely be a movement for 'emancipating' juveniles and bringing them into the workforce, as they are a generally untapped taxbase.

      Delete
  8. "Women are the great protectors of children, physically and morally.
    Once that protection is gone. The child can more easily be inducted into the service of the state."

    Yup. And when that happens then what happens? The state soon becomes a god, mostly without people even realizing it.

    ReplyDelete