From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:40:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.001534.27631@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
[On the logistics of the LP backing woman in combat]
>Well, to a great extent it is both.  I addressed the sort of thing, that
>we could do to make it less a matter of legistics, further down in the
>original post.  But for example not having woman serve on attack
>submarines is a great example of descrimination that the Libs should take
>a strong stance against.

In what forum?  Libertarians typically don't have the clout to start an issue,
so we more typically try to jump into an existing debate.  It would probably
be better at the moment, to back allowing gayfolk in the military (and perhaps
attach the issue of letting the most qualified persons do any job regardless
of race, gender or sexual orientation).

[On employee illness vs. pregnancy.]
>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.

We agree that they should be treated fairly, and I hope we agree the
government should stay out of it.  Given that, I suggest it would be
counter-productive to work both to strengthen and weaken existing government
intervention, and the bette approach is to eliminate both.

[On sexual harassment -- vs assault.]
>	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?

If no one is threatened, where's the crime?  If someone asks me to do something
I don't want to do, but doesn't threaten me, why should I make it a crime?
Just because I don't like it?

[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.

[On protesting NY "topless" laws.]
>Yes, but you don't see the LP march with the woman in NY to get them
>repealed.  Perhaps you missed the beggining of this argument, I was
>agruing that Lib. philosophy is very compatable with feminism; but the
>party as an antoganistic relationship with feminism it shouldn't have.

I'm not in NY, so I don't have first hand knowledge of what the LP did there
(I didn't even realize there *were* any marches).  Perhaps the LP didn't
know about them beforehand with enough time to get people out.

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.

[On extending "civil rights" legislation to women.]
>So in other words, you would rather have these laws apply unequally, then
>correct them, even if you disagree with the law?

Yes.  The laws are going to be badly flawed no matter what we do, so the best
approach is to have them as small as possible (and work to get them even
smaller).

[On mandating insurance companies pay for birth control.]
>Many people are insured for medicines for "health" reasons but not for
>Birth Control.  That's why they would want this to apply.

Either way, they pay.  Without getting insurance companies (much less the
government) involved, people have a wider range of choices, since outside
agencies will want restrictions on *how* birth control is to be implemented
(cost, possible side effects, being the reasons).

[On the nature of marriage contracts.]
>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.

Why does society need to be involved, period?  "Society" has no vested
interest in the relationship.  Marriage, as a special legal entity, should
be eliminated.

[On "no fault" divorce.]
>No, no fault primarily refers to the method of splitting the estate and
>assets.  Originally, someone violating their marriage vows, and it was
>this person's "fault" that the divorce had happened, so they were
>financailly penialized.  No fault sought to end this.

The simple answer is to let prenuptual agreements cover how the relationship
can be eliminated.  If the people involved want to amend them, fine; if not,
then the contract would hold.

                                             James Parker
                                             jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian