This article in no way has a libertarian bias but it does note various laws that seem like a gender based caste system that was around up to the sixties. It is about situations in the "Mad Men" series.
I think these laws not only hurt the ability of women to be economically independent of men but it must have some effect on their pay scales at the time. Much like what Jim Crow did to African Americans.
What do you guys think?
Here is the article:
Any sort of claim that women were generally treated differently in the past is bogus. Feminist history is revisionist. It defines rules by exceptions. You don't just toss away a bra and do lots of whining and suddenly the "chauvinist" male masses have a psychological upheaval.
If you consider token gestures like the ones cited in the article a significant indicator, take as a counter example in legislation the age of consent. Until about 1980 it only applied to girls in Canada. Those were some happy days for catholic priests.
I am sexist for treating women nicelier than men?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
In my more cynical and sexist moods, I think that the whole feminism thing was just a plot to extract more tax revenue from women and turn the role of "mother" over to the state.
And during the 1960s men were being drafted into Vietnam, so it's not like everything was terrible for women and great for men.
Only the most radical, out-of-touch feminists would deny certain instances or contexts in which men specifically get screwed over. But only the most radical, out-of-touch anti-feminists would deny certain instances or contexts (especially in the past) in which women specifically have been screwed over. The reactionary battles in either direction seem over the top to me.
yeah, good point. Everyone gets screwed over at some time or another - no use in getting all reactionary about it.