From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:03:52 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1992Dec23.031929.14740@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}In article <1992Dec22.231354.4870@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec20.222747.11735@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}>}	Asking someone out on a date is not a crime, and no one wants to
}>}make it one.
}>
}>The Mother of sexual harassment, Catharine MacKinnon, does, as does her partner
}>in crime, Andrea Dworkin.  Then again, they think that if heterosexual sex
}>involves penetration, then the woman is being oppressed.
}>
}
}	Have you ever read anything by these two woman or just read about
}them?

I've not only read some of their stuff, but a good friend of my family is a
feminist law professor that knows MacKinnon personally; they're named after
the same woman.

Dworkin believes that society is too represive for a woman to ever
}"consent" to sex in a meaningful way with a man (the same argument that
}many people use with regard to pediphilia).  This is not the same as
}wanting to outlaw hetrosexual sex; I'd like to know where either person
}said that.  As for MacKinnen haven't read anything by her so I'll refrain
}from commenting.

I'm well aware of Dworkin's religious beliefs.  I've never heard anyone ever
say that pedophilia is impemissible on the grounds that children are too
societally "repressed" ("oppressed" is Dworkin/MacKinnon's favorite word for
this) to consent to it.  I've heard it argued that they're incapable of consent,
but never due to societal oppression.

Furthermore, their whole work is predicated upon banning such "oppression."
I may not have read this in one of their books, but I've heard it from them.
MacKinnon argues that porn oppresses women, thus it must be banned.  She
argues that sexual advances and work environments with girlie posters oppress
women, and thus must be banned.  They argue that what usually passes for
consensual heterosexual sex is actually rape; rape is rightly banned, but
they want to make this category overinclusive.

}>>The question is why should it be permissable for one person
}>}to verbally harrass another?
}>
}>Nope, the question is whether "unwelcome" sexual advances constitute harassment.
}>
}
}	Repeated unwelcome andvances, after the woman has made it known
}that such advances are unwelcome.  Lets be fair here.

I don't recall "repeated" being stipulated in the law as part of the definition
of the crime.  In that case, however, how many repetitions?  One?  Two?  Three?
What if the poor guy just thought she might change her mind, respecting her
autonomy the whole time?  Should be go to jail for this?

}>I'm unfamiliar with the definition of "sexual intimidation."  Will you
}>please elaborate?
}>
}
}	Well, basically using sex to intimadate someone.  Basically its an
}attempt to establish dominance through sexuality.  Imagine yourself about
}to get into a fight with a woman.  She starts up, and you say something
}like, "hey bitch wanna fuck".  She flips out, and you keep with it.  She
}probally will get angry and walk away very quickly.  Net effect she's been
}intimidated.  

Is intimidation against the law or not?  If it is, what's its legal definition?
If you supports its criminalization, what definition do you support?

}	If you want to see the effect of this on a large scale, take
}a female and have her hang out with a male cat when she's not in heat. 
}Next take the cat when she's in heat to this male cat, and let them have
}intercourse.  When her heat is over take her back to the male cat.  This
}time the female will be very submissive.  (Note:  if you want to see how
}feminists view hetrosexual sex, watch them mate, if that doesn't look like
}rape, I don't no what does).

The SF Sunday Examiner-Chronicle recently published a piece by MacKinnon and
one by Wendy Kaminer, opposed to each other on the subject of banning porn.
Kaminer pointed out that MacKinnon's arguments come down to: porn must be
banned because men are dogs straining at their leashes to force women to have
sex with them by any means necessary.  I'm well aware of this false and
insulting view of "straight" male sexuality.

However, very few feminists in fact view sex this way, thankfully, according
to Bobby Lilly, of Californians Against Censorship Together, a "free-speech
feminist."  The vocal minority has merely gone for the high ground while
selling their souls to the Christian Right.

}>}	Do you object to laws against assualt?  Why should one form be a
}>}felony, and the other a very hard to prove tort?
}>
}>It's a very hard to prove felony at the moment.  However, I'm of the vein
}>of libertarian thought that thinks that crimes should be treated as intentional
}>torts.  This would include felonies.
}>
}
}	Would imprisonment be potentially a punishment for commiting a
}tort under this system?

Yep.  Victims could even sue for the death penalty.

}>}However, is there any justification for treating this sort of
}>}medicine different?  Why should woman's health concerns, not recieve equal
}>}treatment.
}>
}>If the woman's health concern is a chosen pregnancy, then holding her as
}>responsible for it as someone who drinks and drives is equal treatment under
}>just laws.
}>
}
}	So that how can argue this and be pro-choice.  If I remember in
}that debate you argued that the fetus has no rights because its the
}mothers body....  But if she choose to lease it out....

You misremember.  My position is that the rights of unborn children don't
include the right to life support from their mother.  If she chooses to lease
her womb, then she most assuredly should provide her own financial support for
herself as par of the contract!

}>}	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.
}>
}>We believe in minimizing the State, and see no reason why the State should
}>favor two-party heterosexual marriages over homosexual ones, polygamous
}>ones, etc.  Rather than writing a laundry list of kinds of permissible
}>marriages to be sanctioned by the State, we'd rather get the State out of
}>the business of sanctioning this private contract.
}>
}
}	What then would be the difference between marriage and a couple
}who lived together had joint assests and had sex?

None that I can think of.  That's roughly how marriage originated in medeival
times.  A man and a woman would live together, and get a priest to witness
their agreement to do so.  Nowadays the witness needn't be a priest.


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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2863 alt.politics.clinton:18981 alt.politics.bush:14821