Association of Libertarian Feminists
Main Page
Twenty-Five Years
by Joan Kennedy Taylor
It seems hard to believe, but ALF is twenty-five years old. February 2, 1998, to be exact, is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the day ALF was founded in the living room of Tonie Nathan.
In early 1973, it seemed that this country's legal system was about to change the way it dealt with women. The Equal Rights Amendment had passed Congress the year before and was being ratified by state after state, and the Supreme Court decided in January, in Roe v. Wade, that women had a right to abortion. However, things weren't transformed that easily. Women's right to abortion became an issue that has been a matter of controversy ever since. The Equal Rights Amendment was another issue of controversy until it expired without being ratified in 1982, but meanwhile, states did a good job of dismantling most of the laws that discriminated against women. Presidents came and went; the Soviet Union crumbled in a way that perhaps no one but Ayn Rand would have predicted; women made unimaginable strides in business and the professions; and the term sexual harassment was invented (before 1975, said Gloria Steinem, "We called it 'life'.")
Much has changed, but much has stayed the same. In this issue of ALF News, we have two articles, both by members of ALF, that indirectly provide a comparison and a contrast between today and yesterday. Today we have more regulatory barriers than ever, but we also have new mainstream libertarian groups, like the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C., that are working within the establishment to tackle them head-on. Donna G. Matias, who is a staff attorney at that Institute for Justice, writes in "Decriminalizing Work" of the plight of some African-American women, many of them seeking an entrepreneurial escape from poverty.
The article "On Feminism" was written in the seventies by Tonie Nathan, explaining what ALF was and what it intended to do. In the seventies, despite the fact that Tonie was the first woman in history to receive a vote in the U.S. Electoral College, when she ran as the candidate for Vice President on the Libertarian Party ticket, libertarians were in no way part of the establishment -- we were in many ways part of the counter-culture.
But ALF is still basically the same. The wording of our statement of purpose may have changed a bit, but we still have the same points to make, and the world still seems to need to have them articulated.
Decriminalizing Work
by Donna G. Matias
With few exceptions, readers of this newsletter will not likely quibble with the notion that in this country, the government exercises far too much power over our lives. Almost always, supporters of such a broad reach of power can concoct some reason, however unfounded or silly, that the government must regulate or prohibit certain activity. Meanwhile, those affected by such regulations, who usually have neither the emotional stamina nor the money to fight a long battle with the government, are left to suffer the consequences. This is nowhere more apparent than in the battle for economic liberty, where "suffering the consequences" can mean depending on welfare.
Economic liberty is, quite simply, the right to earn an honest living free from arbitrary and excessive government regulation. One obvious example of barriers to economic liberty can be found in a host of occupational licensing laws. These laws, prevalent in every state in this country for a variety of occupations, are intended to limit the supply of services (and keep prices up), thus protecting those who benefit from the scheme from any competition. Those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder suffer most, because their little capital and skills will never suffice to break the state's protectionist barriers, even when, in a free market, they would suffice to create services in demand.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, has as part of its mission the determination to break down these barriers and restore economic liberty as a fundamental civil right. As an example of this work, the Institute represents numerous individuals who provide "African hairstyling" services to clients, despite the fact that, without a cosmetology license, such activity is against the law.
African hairstyling is, quite simply, a form of natural (i.e., chemical-free) haircare that most commonly includes hairbraiding, weaving extensions, locking, and twisting. It involves special skills and is most popular among women of African descent because it addresses the unique needs of highly textured hair without harsh chemicals or other treatments. In fact, many clients and practitioners of natural haircare view traditional cosmetology as anathema to black women because they advocate the use of "corrective" measures (a term used by mainstream cosmetology schools) before the natural hair can be dealt with.
Thus, natural haircare often involves more than simply a hairstyle choice for black women; it touches on issues of identity and culture.
In California, as in many states around the country, practitioners of natural haircare must first obtain a cosmetology license before they may legitimately practice their enterprise. This is no small task: state-required cosmetology school costs between $5,000 and $7,000 and 1,600 hours (about nine months) of course work as a prerequisite to taking the mandatory licensing exam.
While these requirements are onerous by themselves, they impose a particular burden on natural haircare entrepreneurs: of the 1,600 hours of mandatory course work, not one minute is devoted to teaching natural haircare theory or skills. Approximately 96 percent of the curriculum requires instruction in arching eyebrows, applying and removing makeup, applying false nails, making pincurls, and cutting hair. Natural haircare is not tested on the exam, and a student who wishes only to become a natural haircare professional must demonstrate her facility in using chemical treatments. And while the state attempts to justify these licensing rules on the grounds of "health and safety," only about 20 hours of the required coursework actual address health and sanitation issues relevant to natural haircare.
As a result of this twisted regime, those skilled in natural haircare may not practice it without a cosmetology license; yet those with a cosmetology license need not show any competence or skill in natural haircare in order to practice the craft!
In San Diego, the Institute for Justice represents an entrepreneur, JoAnne Cornwell, chair of the Africana Studies Department at San Diego State University and creator of a system of natural haircare called "sisterlocks." Sisterlocks differs from the numerous braiding styles many black women (and sometimes men) sport, although all the techniques eschew the use of chemicals on the hair.
Dr. Cornwell founded a company, Sisterlocks, which provides training and certification in her unique hairstyling method. This training, in turn, creates economic opportunity for women all over the country to provide services to willing clients. Dr. Cornwell has operated Sisterlocks since 1993, always outside of the law; because the mandatory cosmetology requirements bear so little, if any, relationship to her craft, she refuses to obtain a license.
The Institute also represents the American Hairbraiders and Natural Haircare Association (AHNHA), a national association of natural haircare practitioners, many of them unlicensed. One AHNHA member, a San Diego-based hairbraiding salon called the Braiderie, employs skilled braiders from Senegal, who learned their craft as young girls. Because these women are unlicensed, the Braiderie now faces fines and criminal punishment for "aiding and abetting" unlicensed activity. A similar lawsuit is pending in Ohio, where braiders have been warned to shut down their business unless they obtain a license, on the threat of criminal prosecution.
By erecting arbitrary and excessive barriers to entrepreneurship, the state impedes the right of individuals to earn an honest living and precludes them from employing and training others in valuable skills that could serve as springboards to economic opportunity. Feminists should note that many of these barriers, like the licensing of natural haircare practitioners, disproportionately affect women.
In an era of welfare reform, shouldn't we decriminalize work?
On Feminism
by Tonie Nathan
[This article was originally published in the Willamette Valley Observer of Eugene, Oregon (c. 1977) and reprinted in On Libertarianism c. Tonie Nathan 1981.]
The Association of Libertarian Feminists (ALF) was founded on Ayn Rand's birthday, February 2nd, 1973 in my home in Eugene, Oregon. The first members included men, as well as women. I felt an organization was needed to offer an alternative to other women's groups. It seemed to me that many women who felt unjustly treated by many of our present inequitable laws were being used by leftists and socialists for political purposes. It seemed important to counter this outside the Libertarian party.
It seemed that many women were seeking a political system that could guarantee their complete economic security and it seemed they were looking for a husband-father substitute. But women who have been subjected to authoritarian restrictions by males ought to realize that Marxist Socialism is simply another form of the male-female power struggle. Male domination or state domination--neither should be tolerated. Neither help women to become free and independent. The following statement was released to the press after our first ALF meeting in Eugene.
There is today a terrible tendency to apply political solutions to what are really psychological and educational problems. The current cry for affirmative action programs is an example of this.
Libertarian feminists resent and reject all legislation which attempts to provide us with special treatment by the law.
We also resent and reject legislation which attempts to "equalize" our social or economic position. Frankly, we don't think there is anyone else in the world quite like us and we object to political attempts to rob us of our uniqueness.
However, recognizing that bigotry and unjust legal discrimination do exist presently, we support the efforts of all concerned individuals to change this situation by non-coercive means.
Politically, of course, a person has the right to be a bigot and the state ought take no notice of this flaw. However, more often than not, the state itself promotes bigotry and sponsors legislation which results in unfair discrimination against certain classes of citizens.
We hope the Association of Libertarian Feminists can help correct that situation while recognizing, at the same time, that education is the best long-lasting solution for eliminating prejudice and injustice.
In September, 1975, ALF became a national organization at a meeting held in New York City. In an effort to promote Libertarian views at the National Women's Conference in Houston, Texas in 1977, I submitted a proposal for removing all sections of the United States Postal Regulations which restrict the mailing of contraceptive samples and contraceptive information. Such antiquated postal regulations prevent private agencies and contraceptive manufacturers from dispensing information that would allow women to control their reproduction. Taxpayers are now paying much of public birth control education and abortion costs. I don't think the government should be involved in this nor should persons who object to this type of activity be forced to fund it with their tax dollars.
The following article was written just before going to the National Women's Conference and was an attempt to reach out to women who were dissatisfied with other organized women's groups.
Not to Rule, But to Live
In 1838 Quaker feminist Sarah Grimke wrote to her sister as follows:
"All I ask of our brethren is that they will take their feet off our necks, and permit us to stand upright on the ground...."
But in 1977, the feminists of this century, this year, this month, want more. Speaking recently at the University of Oregon, New American Movement Socialist Barbara Ehrenreich said she wants to alter the political structure in a way which will concretely deliver a larger slice of the national "pie" to women.
"There should be automatic guaranteed economic security," according to Ehrenreich. "Some form of socialism is a minimum requirement," writes Marxist-Leninist Marlene Dixon in Ramparts Magazine. "A transition will require a revolution, I have no doubt," says Margaret Benston in the Monthly Review. And Roxanne Dunbar rages, "How could we possibly settle for anything remotely less...than total annihilation of a system which systematically destroys half its people...?"
Well, can we settle for less? What do feminists want and how do they propose to get it?
As far as the radical socialist feminists are concerned, the answer is easy--they want revolution and complete political control.
The liberal, statist feminist, who may or may not be a socialist, eschews violent revolution, but is doing her darndest to "equalize" her place with man. Unfortunately, this automatically makes her status dependent on men, so that if men are enslaved women share their misery. If men are poor, women likewise. If men make war, women participate. And if men win power, etcetera....
There is a group of women, of course, who are terribly anxious to preserve the status quo. These women want the protection to which they have become accustomed. They do not want "liberation," equality or responsibility. They are content to be well-treated slaves.
Each of these groups depends on holding or controlling political power in order to obtain its desires or goals. And, if it gets the powers, each group intends to force its values on the rest of society.
The protectionists will lobby to enforce their values by demanding public programs designed for women, such as displaced homemaker bills, free abortions, child care centers for students and working mothers, and affirmative action programs which force private employers to hire people they don't want to hire.
The radicals will not allow a power struggle, of course. They must reduce all resistance to nothing. Women will have what their leaders let them have.
Now what do Libertarian feminists want and how do they propose to get it?
Recognizing restrictive and regulatory legislation for what it is--a weapon used to club dissenting citizens into conformity with the values of the ruling political hierarchy, the Libertarian refuses to support coercive legislation, even if it benefits her in the short run. "Libertarian feminists believe that all social interactions should be voluntary, that no one has the right to rule another, that individuals have the right to live their lives in any manner they see fit as long as they don't initiate force or fraud," says Sharon Presley, national coordinator of ALF (Association of Libertarian Feminists).
"Libertarians want to repeal laws, not pass them," Presley continues. "They are not interested in stopping people from smoking pot, having abortions, or from spending their money as they see fit. Libertarians just want to leave people alone."
An eclectic, nonpartisan organization, ALF has a membership that includes both women and men, straights and gays, anarchists and limited-government advocates, and proponents of the free market and communalists. What all have in common is their opposition to sexism and their belief that "government is women's enemy."
The purpose of ALF is to
- encourage women to become economically self-sufficient and psychologically independent;
- publicize and promote realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential;
- oppose the abridgement of individual rights by any government because of sex;
- work toward changing sexist attitudes and behavior exhibited by individuals;
- provide a Libertarian alternative to those aspects of the women's movement that foster dependence.
ALF issues a number of well-written "discussion papers" calculated to stimulate interest in Libertarian approaches to feminist issues. The only formal stand taken by ALF is on the issue of reproductive freedom, adopted by the membership on October 20, 1977. It states that:
"The basic human right to limit one's own reproduction includes the right to all forms of birth control (contraception, including sterilization, and abortion), recognizing the dual responsibility of both sexes. ALF therefore opposes all practices and all governmental actions that restrict access to any of these means of birth control, and advocates the elimination of all laws and practices that would compel any woman to bear a child against her will."
Libertarian feminists intend to prevail. But how? The answer is obvious--peaceful persuasion, passionate protest, and confidence in other humans.
In Oregon, there are signs that this method is effective. A great many women have already ceased political activism and are learning to live independently.
They have already liberated themselves by adopting a lifestyle in communities where there is mutual respect among the individuals involved and a high degree of education, self-sufficiency and cooperative concern. To the degree that these women are free of dependence on public handouts or state help, they are the new rugged individualists, as are their male counterparts. Their search for a new identity and purpose is the same search that took pioneers west in the nineteenth century and sent sailors to sea. There is a willingness among these folk to reject establishment norms in favor of self-discovery, experimentation and creative and artistic achievement.
I do not think these female entrepreneurs need the feminist movement. To a great extent, they are already "liberated" and are Libertarians.