The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter January/February, 2000, Vol. 7, Number 1. Free Market Feminism by David Conway Published with commentaries by the IEA Health and Welfare Unit Reviewed by Amanda Printz

T he feminist struggle used to be the fight for liberty. It was a movement which aspired to claim for women the liberty that substantiates the core of what it means to be an individual. Far from being motivated solely or even principally by the desire to create total equality between all men and all women, early feminism aimed to actualize liberty itself, so that each individual might flourish.

Unfortunately, the second-wave of feminism that dominates today has managed not only to discard the original intentions of the movement but has also been successful at revising them. The tyrannical usurpation of feminism's goals by more radical feminists has led to limited freedom for all individuals, a more systematic economic oppression of women, a destruction of the family unit, and the near disappearance of the female identity. Today's goals are not to fight for women's claim to liberty-- to have choices, to compete, to pursue goals that actualize them as individuals-- but rather, to dismantle capitalism, eradicate the dual-sex species, combat other feminists, and allow women to become Big Sister over a paternalistic provider-state-- at least until things are set straight.

The most incredible fallacy of the feminist position against capitalism and the free-market is the denial of a most obvious fact: feminists are business people too, entrepreneurs benefitting from capitalism and the functioning of a competitive market. In the free-market, which is dictated by free exchange, consumer preference, hierarchical production, and the freedom of association, feminists have provided a product that consumers desire, and yes, their product has dominated over other products. The real point is this: Capitalism gave birth to and has parented the feminist movement.

In "Free Market Feminism," published with commentaries by the IEA Health and Welfare Unit, classical feminist, philosopher, and free-market economist David Conway writes that the new feminist attack of the freemarket has resulted only in an "oppressive form of tyranny exercised by feminists" (p. 44). More specifically, he argues that the policies which have resulted from the anti-market feminist agenda, policies such as anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, equal pay for work of equal value, and state-provided or subsidized child care, are unnecessary as means for limiting discrimination against women in a free market, and have only led to women's further oppression in the 'extra-domestic' and domestic spheres of society. He asserts that women, particularly feminists, should support rather than oppose the market because a free market is the most effective tool for maximizing the opportunities and capabilities of women and for eradicating the liberty-thwarting aspects of society that women have fallen victim to for centuries. But in my view, Conway's conclusion also outlines the even broader claim that the principles underlying the free-market are fundamentally similar, if not identical to, the foundational tenets and intentions of classical feminism. Both the free-market and feminism value the right to associate freely with whomever one chooses (women fought for the opportunity to freely associate with each other and with others in an 'extra-domestic' atmosphere, such as that at Seneca Falls); both esteem private property as central to liberty; and both aspire to provide each individual with choices and the opportunity to excel because of their capabilities as individuals, regardless of all other factors.

Conway argues that the important differences which determine whether a feminism is free-market (classical and un-oppressive) or anti-market (post-modern and oppressive) lie in feminism's fundamental goals and its corresponding approach to traditional sex roles. The goal of free-market feminism has been, for centuries, to gain for women the legal, civil, and political rights that have been accorded to men--the same equal opportunity as individuals under the law. For the most part, free-market feminism believes that this goal has nearly been reached, and attempts presently only to secure the liberties pertaining to equal opportunity which still have not been fully realized. Individuals --and this includes redoubtable corporate presidents-- should be given the opportunity to pursue goals that they wish to pursue, without unnecessary favoritism or neglect for any. Likewise, each individual should be free to choose not to pursue all goals he deems unworthy or unproductive for material or personal reasons.

Anti-market feminism, on the other hand, is motivated by the conviction that "legal equality between the sexes was by itself insufficient to bring about or permit equality of opportunity between the sexes." And hence, "additional legislative measures are needed." (pp.9-10) The revised goal is to eliminate unique and wonderful differences between the sexes and individuals, favoring women unnecessarily --as the victimized sex --by providing them with advantages over men in the 'extra-domestic' domains of society, which in turn, destroys freedom of association and free competition. Not only does the revisionism of feminism's goals of this sort destroy these elements of the free-market-- it also asserts that it is precisely these elements and factors of the free-market which have caused legal equality between the sexes to be insufficient as a means of bringing about equal opportunity between the sexes. According to Conway, this assertion --the heart of the anti-market agenda and the bulk of its reasons for advocating the previously mentioned policies --is dependent on its approach toward traditional sex roles. Correspondingly, the approach towards traditional sex roles that classical free-market feminism maintains is consistent with, and an encouragement of, its pro-market arguments.

Anti-market feminism avows that traditional sex roles deny women the opportunities that men have in the 'extra-domestic' spheres of society. For these feminists, traditional sex roles or role-playing require that women be the primary care-takers of children. If women are supposed to be the primary care-takers of a couple's children, then women are forced away from jobs, goals, opportunities, and even contemplation of jobs, goals, and opportunities that they wish to pursue and choose because they have to care for their children. More to the point, men, by developing and maintaining a patriarchal-capitalist system, have created a market system and a paradigm of living that only really gives women the option of staying at home caring for her children. An important facet of this argument that David Conway seems to neglect, is the anti-market feminist's claim that traditional sex roles were developed by men to keep women out of the 'extra-domestic' spheres of society, and also to exclude them from these spheres by convincing women that being the primary care-takers of children is their natural occupation. Thus, and so the argument goes, women today who attempt roles in the 'extra-domestic' spheres of society do not flourish as successfully or have the immense opportunities that men have because they do not believe that they can flourish, their self-esteem has been destroyed by feelings of inadequacy and awkwardness because men have made them believe that they are out of their domain. The result is anti-market policies such as affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, quotas, equal pay for work of equal value, state-provided child care, etc., which are thought to help eliminate this residual inequality of opportunity that plagues women.

The argument assumes that it is possible that a person's choice, and actions which lead to that choice, are not really her actions or even her choice: years of brainwashing, by men who are driven to make money and compete and produce functional products, are the ones that determine her choices. It is a self-defeating move for any feminist to make this assumption, because it denies women the mental capacities that we have been fighting to be recognized for since the nascent of the movement: the capability of rational, logical, "vertically motivated", judgement - making choices on our own.

As David Conway eloquently explains in his essay, it is this position regarding the traditional sex roles and the goal to bring about their elimination, that requires anti-market feminism to advocate policies such as affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, equal pay for work of equal value, and state-provided or subsidized childcare (to name a few).

"He concludes that these policies and ostensibly, anti-market feminism itself, are unnecessary in a free market to eliminate discrimination, and lead to the further oppression of women and all individuals. Feminists have claimed for centuries that sex should not be a job-related qualification. In a free-market it is not"

He concludes that these policies and ostensibly, anti-market feminism itself, are unnecessary in a free market to eliminate discrimination, and lead to the further oppression of women and all individuals. Feminists have claimed for centuries that sex should not be a job-related qualification. In a free-market it is not; the only qualification is to hire those individuals that will help an entrepreneur most efficiently and successfully market his product. Conway argues that if an employer practices sexual-discrimination, then he will be put at a disadvantage compared to his competitors; the free market has a built in equal-opportunizing element. Furthermore, anti -discrimination laws are superfluous and detrimental to employers, because benefits can be gained from single-sex firms. This claim is praiseworthy. Conway is one of few who will admit that there are natural and fundamental elements of sex-war plaguing all of our interactions and regulating all work place environments: it just might not be as productive for men and women to work together in certain environments. But even more, if there was more allowance for single-sex firms, more all-female firms might be established, allowing for more opportunities for women to be employed in a competitive market.

Free market feminists assert that the widespread existence and acceptance of traditional sex roles plays no part in denying equal opportunity to women or maintaining the inequalities of the past. The many individuals who have chosen to uphold these traditional roles have chosen so freely from the conviction that these roles are the best means of securing their survival and happiness. In tune with the original intentions of feminism, this position upholds the value of individual choices, private property, and liberty for each individual. Not only should women support rather than oppose the market, they should support the maintenance of classical feminism rather than the second-wave, anti-market, tyrannical feminism that dominates today-- if we want to remain women, or even individuals at all. If the true mission of the feminist movement is to secure opportunity and liberty, then the free-market is the best route. In a regulated state, opportunity and choice are anomalies, which Conway correctly has foreseen.