I found a lot to take issue with in Tucker's article, but I'll just comment on bit that you quoted. It relies on an argument from Aristotle that is really quite absurd on its face.

He is making a defense of the idea that women and children are property of men. The alternative that he is defending against is the prospect of "having women and children common." This supposes that women and children can be nothing more than property in one form or another, that they are objects or tools to be used by men as they see fit. He defends the idea of private ownership of women and children on the basis that a man couldn't regard them tenderly unless they were considered his property.

I think that it's a rather sad way of looking at the world.

And it's far from necessary to base social relationships in terms of ownership and objectification. We have knowledge of a much wider range of adaptive strategies than Aristotle was even capable of considering. Cultures throughout the world employ many different configurations of how kinship and descent are organized.

The framing of social relationships in terms of ownership of property is most commonly found in those societies in which there is a strong state with an active military, and whose economic system is based on slavery or bondage in one form or another. This isn't the result of a thought experiment, this is empirical evidence, historical record.

I completely fail to see how this view of the world can be advocated by anyone who favors freedom.