From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:27:47 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1992Dec20.194039.12436@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>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).
>

	However their are legitimate legistical arguments against letting
woman in many of the current combat positions.  This to a great extent was
what I am saying.  To let woman participate in all areas where such
problems do not exist; and to correct them where they do.

>[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.
>

Actually we don't agree.  But I do agree that my position is at odds with
Libertarian one, so I've dropped this point, a few times.

>[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?
>

	Asking someone out on a date is not a crime, and no one wants to
make it one.  The question is why should it be permissable for one person
to verbally harrass another?  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.
	Do you object to laws against assualt?  Why should one form be a
felony, and the other a very hard to prove tort?

>[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.
>

	Well if you see murder and genocide as the same crime, than the
rest of the argument falls.  Most people do not see them as the same crime
at all.

>[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.
>

	Well they are a group.  People react differently to them, and they
react differently to people in many circumstances than men.  They have
different issues that need to be addressed.  The same way Janitors and
Doctors are different groups.  
	Clearly there is a need for some laws regarding medical
techniques.  But is there a need for laws regarding mopping techniques?  
	As for the LP not participating, I was merely citing an example of
something that is deffinitly discriminatory (unequal dress codes) that the
LP didn't speak against, and that is 100% congruent with LP philosophy.

>[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).
>

Agreed gettin insurance companies involved might very well decrease choice
(though this area of medicine is so heavily regulated already I tend to
doubt it).  However, is there any justification for treating this sort of
medicine different?  Why should woman's health concerns, not recieve equal
treatment.

>[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.
>

	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.

>[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.
>

What if there is no prenuptial agreement?

>                                             James Parker
>                                             jap@cb1focus.att.com


--JMB