I have played back and forth with Kevin about this topic on FB but I want to focus on where I think he and others have went wrong:
So I am going to spend the majority of this article explaining what oppression is and what oppression is not. In order to determine if a situation is oppressive, one must ask four questions: What specific group is harmed overall? What specific group benefits and what group constructs and maintains these situations? Finally, is it a part of a structure which tends to confine, reduce, and immobilize some group?
The focus is on the topic of Oppression.
The state can repress, but the state's repression can be checked by civil society (Churches, Political Parties, Unions, and other organizations) but the only entity to check oppression by the people and groups of society is the state.
If the state oppresses the change is simple: We modify the law or remove the mal actors from the state.
So lets take an issue of oppression against women that the Obama administration takes pride in championing. The Lilly Ledbetter Law. We can look at the EU. In the European Union laws and civil society have long been checking against "Oppression" in women's pay. Whats the problem? Women are not paid less money because they are oppressed. They are paid less money because of life choices they make. Even in europe where they receive a full years pay for maternity leave and state policy tries to mitigate these choices: you still end up with the same inequalities.
The Republicans don't bother arguing to women that they aren't paid less, because no woman would believe it. So how do you stand up and defend women from "Oppression" in wages without having the state meddling in the wage and pay policy of a given company? You can't do it. So you end up in seeking to instigate policies that mitigate oppression end up going against Libertarian Principles.
Private firms will still "Oppress" women because the oppression is a fantasy. And private groups telling other private groups to stop with all their oppression unless the oppression is supported by some level of state sanction doesn't work (Look at the attempts to stop the oppression of chic filet just recently)
Lets take another issue
The primary issue which you should avoid like it’s Jimmy Carter is abortion. I’m pro-choice, but I make it clear that not all libertarians feel this way and only discuss it personally, if asked. Same goes for pro-lifers -- a real or perceived restriction of women’s rights can lose some people’s support irreparably, especially (you guessed it) them aforementioned girls.
What does Pro-Choice mean if Insurance companies don't cover abortion. Then you are being "oppressive" the feminist will say. So once again if you embrace using the power of policy (which is what political movements DO) you end up having the state act in a fundamentally unlibertarian way. and a Pro-Life Libertarian finds himself in a similar state. The problem is of course not in standing up for the oppressed but that the ideology and ideas of the Libertarian movement are unable to deal with the pragmatic realities of policy.
Libertarians don't turn off women folk because we aren't selling them the right package. Libertarians turn off women folk because Libertarian politics as they are currently constituted in such a way that they don't connect to the reality of women's lives (or anyones lives). And since I blogged once on this topic I will go into further detail in another post.