From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:58:48 GMT

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?"

}>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.

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.

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?

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.

}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.

}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.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian