From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 14:09:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.055848.410@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.001534.27631@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}I don't think an employer would treat an ill employee fairly, and think in
>}all fairness the evidence is on my side on that one.  However, these laws
>}protecting sick employees do exist.  As long as they do why not extend
>}them to pregnant woman.
>
>"Oppressive legislation does exist.  As long as it does, then why not oppress
>everyone?"
>

Well, I conceded this in another post.  So fair enough this is a non lib.
issue.

>}>What sort of "harassment"?  Actually, I would expect the management of the
>}>company to get down on this sort of thing, since it's bad for business.  If
>}>there's not force or fraud involved, though, I don't see getting the government
>}>involved.
>}>
>}
>}	This a perfect example.  Woman do not like to have to be sexual
>}intimadated in the work place.  The same way men don't like to be
>}threatend.  If a man threatens another man, then this a crime.  If a woman
>}is harrassed at best its a civil offense.  Why not put them on parity with
>}one another?
>
>Some women choose to be sexually intimidated in the work place.  Who are you
>to say that they don't like it?  Many don't, but that's what contract law
>is for.  You want to make it a tort.
>
>You've yet to talk about what sexual harassment is and what individual right(s)
>it violates.  Sexual harassment is legally defined as "unwelcome" sexual
>references or advances, or the creation of a "hostile" work environment
>somehow by means of sexual references or advances.  The legal mind behind
>this is the infamous anti-porn jurisprude, Catherine MacKinnon, feminist
>law professor at the University of Michigan.
>

Why in your opinion are laws against assualt (in the legal sense of the word,
meaning being threatend) ligitimate?  Then apply this reasoning to
repeated sexual advances.  This first one is ok, after that what's the
point, the woman has already said, "no".  The point may not be to get a
date, but to intimidate...  Very much like assault.

>I submit that the unwelcomeness standard is arbitrary, as is the determination
>of a "hostile" work environment, thus undermining the rule of law and replacing
>it with a rule of women.
>

Not really, ask the question this way.  Did the woman make it clear to you
that the sexual advance was unwelcome?  Did you continue to do it
regardless of her objections.  This is pretty clearly a very factual
crime.  

>I see not one single solitary individual right violated by merely unwelcome
>sexual advances or references.  Can anyone fill me in on what any might be?
>

See above.

>Already existing criminal, contract, and property law seems adequate to me
>to deal with any possible sexual invasions.  If the penalties aren't enough,
>then increase them, don't invent new principles for the criminalization of
>non-invasive conduct.
>
>Criminalizing sexual harassment over and above the laws I've supported
>constitutes legislating penalties for mere misconduct, or vice.  Vices are
>not crimes, and thus out of bounds for legislation.  Banning sexual misconduct
>is as impermissible as banning misconduct in any other area, such as self-
>medication ("drug abuse"), masturbation ("self-abuse"), etc.
>

Agreed, vices shouldn't be banned, but I don't see sexual harasment as a vice.

>}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.
>
>I'm not persuaded of this.  Individuals are always the victims.  In some
>cases, the motive may be hatred of all women, but in others it may be
>hatred of the particular victim.
>

Well the group of individuals that this tends to happen to see it as a
crime against their group rather than against themselves as individuals. 
Most crimologists agree.  Commonly rape is directed at strangers.  

>}Exactly!  Living togother and having sex is an agreement between two
>}people, marriage is an agreement between a couple and society.  In fact
>}the definition marriage includes that it be public.  The signing a
>}contract, living toghethr, and having sex doesn't need to be.
>
>If that's marriage, I'm against it.  I'd prefer to let marriage to be a
>private matter.
>

I don't understand, elaborate.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian