From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.222747.11735@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.194039.12436@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
[On the logistics of the LP backing woman in combat]
>	However their are legitimate legistical arguments against letting
>woman in many of the current combat positions.  This to a great extent was
>what I am saying.  To let woman participate in all areas where such
>problems do not exist; and to correct them where they do.

I'm still not sure what you would have the LP do.  Argue in the abstract?  Get
behind a particular case?  Finding such a case?

>>[On sexual harassment -- vs assault.]
>	Asking someone out on a date is not a crime, and no one wants to
>make it one.  The question is why should it be permissable for one person
>to verbally harrass another?  Assualt (in the legal sense of the word,
>which means to threaten) is a felony, even if no actual attack takes
>place.  Woman seem to feel the same way about assault that men do; however
>they also fall victim to another type of assualt; sexual intimidation,
>commonly called sexual harrasment.

Could you be more concrete in your description of sexual intimidation?  The
term is too nebulous for me to respond to intelligently.

>	Do you object to laws against assualt?  Why should one form be a
>felony, and the other a very hard to prove tort?

Actually, I think they should both be torts.  Felonies, unfortunately, are
considered a crime against the state, not the victim.  This gives the state
far too much power, and leaves the victim out in the cold.

>>[On rape.]
>>>Rape is very different from most types of assault.  Assult is generally
>>>directed against an individual, while rape is a crime directed against a
>>>group.  Its the difference between murder and genocide.
>>
>>*Strong* disagreement here.  Rape is a crime against individuals.  Individuals
>>are hurt.  They are hurt as much whether it is directed at them, or because
>>someone identifies them as a member of a group.
>>
>>BTW, genocide is simply a lot of individual murders, each with the same
>>motive.  No different than the same number of murders with different motives.
>>
>
>	Well if you see murder and genocide as the same crime, than the
>rest of the argument falls.  Most people do not see them as the same crime
>at all.

What is the difference?  Is killing 10,000 people via genocide somehow "worse"
than killing them for some other foolish reason?  Would you tell the spouse
of someone who was killed in a robbery, say, "Well, at least it wasn't
genocide."

As for how people view it, I would suggest that by and large they havn't
considered the question.

>
>>[On protesting NY "topless" laws.]
>>BTW, I *did* see the start of the debate.  I see the problem with feminists,
>>though, as most feminists having a mentality that women should be treated
>>as a group, not as individuals, and further wanting that group to be offically
>>recognized and dealt with by government intervention.

>	Well they are a group.  People react differently to them, and they
>react differently to people in many circumstances than men.  They have
>different issues that need to be addressed.  The same way Janitors and
>Doctors are different groups.  

They are a group.  So are people who have a last name with second letter being
a vowel.  

As for reacting differently, one can, to an extent, stereotype behavior. 
However, this does a disservice to those who don't "fit" the stereotype.
Feminists don't care about that.  Conforming to your proper sexual role is
far more important than being an individual.  I wholeheartedly reject that
model!

>	Clearly there is a need for some laws regarding medical
>techniques.  But is there a need for laws regarding mopping techniques?  

There is as much need for laws regarding mopping techniques as medical
techiques -- none.  Such laws invariably restrict medical techniques to
those approved by the status quo, and limit the growth of new techniques.
Some may insist on "standard" techniques; this can be ensured by using only
certain privately certified physicians (BTW, board certification is not
regulated by the state, but is based on the reputation of the boards).

>	As for the LP not participating, I was merely citing an example of
>something that is deffinitly discriminatory (unequal dress codes) that the
>LP didn't speak against, and that is 100% congruent with LP philosophy.

There's so much to object to that the LP *cannot* address every issue.  Perhaps
if we had a full time staff in the 100's, we could; however, it simply isn't
feasible.  

>>[On mandating insurance companies pay for birth control.]
>Agreed gettin insurance companies involved might very well decrease choice
>(though this area of medicine is so heavily regulated already I tend to
>doubt it).  However, is there any justification for treating this sort of
>medicine different?  Why should woman's health concerns, not recieve equal
>treatment.

Insurance is supposed to cover "unpredictable" costs.  Birth control is
predictable.  It has nothing to do with women.

Would you suggest that insurance ought to pay for my vitamins?

Any *why* would you want the government involved at all?

>
>>[On the nature of marriage contracts.]
>>Marriage, as a special legal entity, should be eliminated.
>>
>	Your not the first person to say this.  Its suprising that almost
>all the libertarians seem to think marriage should be eliminated.  I'm
>curious to find out why.  This is a very strong stance to take.

"Marriage" is currently recognized as a relationship between two persons, one
of each gender, with the State.  This implies that the State has some
legitimate role in this regard.  To allow the State to so intrude, and to
restrict the relationship of any group of people (generalizing to include
gay and group marriages), is to make the State more important than the family.

[On "no fault" divorce.]
>What if there is no prenuptial agreement?

The couple would go to a mutually agreed arbitrator, or failing that, to
court, and present their cases.  The arbitrator/judge would then attempt to
determine the mindset of the individuals through the partnership, what each
has contributed to any "common pool of assets", and rule on a division of
property.  It's likely to be somewhat unfair and arbitrary; this will provide
impetus for people signing prenuptual agreements.  Note that creating such
an agreement wouldn't be hard; it would range from picking up a standard form
at a discount department store (same rack as the "make out your own will"
forms), using a computer generated form that walks you through several
standard issues letting you pick one (such as some current home legal software
is now available), going to an H&R Block Prenuptual Center, or hiring a 
full-fledged private attorney to draft one.  The cost could be as little
as $7.95 -- cheaper than a marriage license, but not surprising given the 
superiority of the free market.

                                   James Parker
                                   jap@cb1focus.att.com