From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:19:29 GMT

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?  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.

>>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.

>>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.
>
>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.  
	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).
	Feminists argue that men use this biological intimidation which
tends occur unfairly in the work place.

>}	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?

>
>}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....

>}	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?

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

--JMB



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian