History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
If you mean "political" in the Oppenheimerian sense of coercive force, then of course I agree. But in the sense of "political" that Charles and I set out in our paper (see the section on the "authoritarian theory of politics"), then a "political" solution is *precisely* what I think is needed.
Certain forms of discrimination against women ~may~ be a "social problem" in some sense, but as long as there is no coercion involved there is no valid political "solution."
I consider most religion to be a "problem" (say did anyone see the Paul Johnson column where he asserts that God killed all those tsunami victims?) and hate the homophobia that often springs from it, but there are no legitimate political means at my disposal to deal with it, as long as the religionists are peaceful.
The question is whether class-analysis feminism has to be collectivist feminism. Since I'm a class-analysis feminist but not a collectivist feminist, I'm inclined to answer no.
Incidentally I'm in complete agreement with McKitrick's paper. McKitrick was *agreeing* with Okin's account of the systematic ways in which women are disadvantaged, but *disagreeing* with Okin's governmental solution. The agreement fits in with class analysis, the disagreement fits in with individualism.
It's a main reason why _individualist_ or liberty-oriented feminism is complemetary with libertarianism, but not why class-analysis (i.e., collectivist) feminisim or socialist feminism is. I took that to be the well-documented conclusion of McKitrick's paper (at the same symposium at which yours was presented).
Well, but one of the claims Charles and I were defending in our paper is that something doesn't have to be "expressed through coercive tactics and legislation" to become "a true societal problem." Though coercive tactics and legislation certainly make societal problems *worse*. Feminists tend to have a keener appreciation of the first fact than of the second; libertarians, vice versa. That's one of the main reasons for conflict between them -- though I also think it's the main reason that libertarianism and feminism are ultimately complementary rather than contradictory.