Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Why is Recognizing the Wacko Left "International Women's Day" ?

From the International Women's Day website:
 So how do we want to celebrate International Women's Day 2016?

We say by Pledging For Parity!

Everyone - men and women - can pledge to take a concrete step to help achieve gender parity more quickly - whether to help women and girls achieve their ambitions, call for gender-balanced leadership, respect and value difference, develop more inclusive and flexible cultures or root out workplace bias. Each of us can be a leader within our own spheres of influence and commit to take pragmatic action to accelerate gender parity.

Commit to take action to accelerate gender parity
Globally, with individuals pledging to move from talk to purposeful action - and with men and women joining forces - we can collectively help women advance equal to their numbers and realize the limitless potential they offer economies the world over. We have urgent work to do. Are you ready to accelerate gender parity


  1. "and realize the limitless potential they offer economies the world over."

    This is the grossest part of their mission statement. So the end goal for a day/month in honor of women is to get more of them into paid jobs?

    How is that more valuable than reproducing, educating and forming future generations and managing the home? Or more important than their role as peacekeepers, confidants and family stabilizers? Men might blow up the world but for women.

    Why wouldn't we want some, perhaps most (though of course not all), women dedicating 100% to these roles, given that they were essential necessary conditions in the success of Western Civ? Why divide their attention?

    Do we really think the future generations will be as self-assured, creative and optimistic if they are raised by day care employees and schools for 75% of their day?

  2. First step to gender parity (I assume they mean "sex parity") is to bring an end to women's hypergamous nature.

  3. Bob,

    A quick visit to the website reveals all. Clicking on "What is Libertarianism" brings up a book list. None written by Murray Rothbard, but a whole lot of David Boaz. Moving into the Books section we find two books published by, both with the Cato imprint. Cato plays a heavy role in this site.

    As for why they would recognize Int. Women's Day? Under Contributors we find one Mikala Novak who writes about libertarian feminism. It follows with this:

    "Novak is an Australian economist with a doctorate in economics, and has long been involved in libertarian advocacy. She is interested in how libertarian feminism concerns relate to how market processes and civil societal actions satisfactorily accommodate individual women’s preferences, in a variety of ways."

    Novak is also a transgender who seems to be down with the retarded SJW nonsense. Cato + SJW = Idiocy.

  4. Why are they including the #InternationalWomensDay hashtag? It's called outreach. By including that hashtag, people searching that hashtag are more far likely to come across the post about libertarianism's Founding Mothers (as they've been called).

    "What, libertarianism had Founding Mothers?" one might ask, followed by, "Maybe I should look more into this whole libertarianism thing...." And, if we're lucky, the person goes on to say, "Hmm, you know, this libertarianism thing seems to be making a lot of sense...."

    Likewise, another way one could do a little outreach on this day is to post positive reviews of Freedom, Feminism, and the State (1982), edited by Wendy McElroy.

    The posting of the quote promoting the seeking of parity seems to be presented as though that is sufficient proof of the supposed "wacko"-ness of the holiday. Let us be clear, people desiring and seeking parity is not ipso facto problematic. In fact, it only becomes problematic when one begins using the guns of government in order to establish it.

    Let's exemplify this point with a comparison: We don't go around calling education bad, do we? Of course not. Yet, when the guns of government are introduced in order to promote education, that's when we speak up, and point out that government meddling makes things worse, not better.

    Thus, in response to those who support parity, the best course is to say, "Hey, we've no problem with that, that is, unless you think the state should get involved. And here are the reasons why that would be ineffective, destructive, or even counter-projective: (1)...."

    Final note: a libertarian book list that does not include Rothbard's For a New Liberty (1973, 1978) or the Tannehills' The Market for Liberty (1970) is a libertarian book list in definite need of augmenting.