In his March 1 column “Several fatal flaws mar the feminist movement,” Professor Walter Block made what was nominally an argument against feminism. No, no, no, Walter. Go to the back of the class. Or take another course in manners. This is hoary chauvinism.
Some of you may recognize this as an adaptation of Professor Block’s letter in response to one of my columns. I was not bothered by his rebuttal of my piece, but most of us were bothered by his recent piece on feminism.
Anyone who has had a few conversations with Professor Block knows his credo: that when people are at liberty to make their own decisions, they do what they think is in their own best interest. Moreover, he believes that a person can decide what is best only for himself or herself, and that non-aggressive, voluntary cooperation will make for a better world than a coerced central plan could. Most of us agree that this is true, at least sometimes.
Somehow this principle became perverted into an attack on “Take Back the Night,” which ironically fits perfectly with what ought to be Professor Block’s core principle of non-aggressive action – along with guns, of course.
So, Professor Block offends feminists, but why?
Whenever Professor Block sees someone arguing that the solution to a problem is government intervention, his default response is either to argue that government intervention would only make things worse, or to deny that a problem exists. The notion that government intervention would make things worse, regardless of whether it is true, ought to be uncontroversial – any specific policy is, of course, only a means to an end.
What is controversial, however, is to deny that a problem exists, to argue, for example, that women should make less than men because they are less productive. The problem is that the status quo, the disparity between male and female wages, among other things, is not fair, because no one can choose to be born male or female. To deny that this unfairness is a problem is to deny not the means but the very end that feminism seeks.
It would be better for him to argue that government intervention would have unintended consequences that would outweigh the benefits. It would be better, still, to offer suggestions as to how feminists can realize their goals without using the government.
Professor Block should not and, in fact, cannot argue that the status quo is the best possible arrangement of all things now and forever. If it were, then there would be no need for human action, and then there would be no need for economics, and Professor Block would have to find another job, possibly making less than 77 percent of what he does now.
Ed Seyler can be reached at
Dale Holmgren • Jul 8, 2019 at 1:11 pm
Mr. Seyler argues “What is controversial, however, is to deny that a problem exists; to argue, for example, that women should make less than men because they are less productive. The problem is that the status quo, the disparity between male and female wages, among other things, is not fair, because no one can choose to be born male or female.”
I read that segment 3 times, because Mr. Seyler’s counterargument doesn’t address Mr. Block’s argument at all. Mr. Seyler appears to not take issue with Mr. Block’s contention that more productive people OUGHT to be paid more than less productive people, but that it’s “unfair” that women are less productive, because they didn’t get to choose to be men. This is not a problem that needs to be fixed. I didn’t get to choose to be Drew Brees, but that doesn’t mean my low income needs to be corrected due Mr. Brees’ superior productivity to mine on the gridiron.