From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 13:56:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.053954.29948@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.160310.10843@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}Before we get into the specifics, what I was trying to say is that these
>}issues are very compatable with libertarianism (the fact you agreed with
>}over half of them off the bat proves that).  This would make the
>}libertarians more friendly to feminist convern than ony party other than
>}the socialist, consumer... if libs. included them in the platform and
>}publicized their support.  The issue was more of why don't they do this.
>
>Good point.  Perhaps we need a "women's issues" piece in the Program.
>

Ok, good, we agree on my major point.  Everything else was just examples
off the top of my head.

>}>What law protecting the sick should be applied to the pregnant?  Why should
>}>disease and pregancy be treated equally?
>}>
>}
>}Basically from a functional standpoint, both people have a temporary
>}reduced capacity that will end resonably soon.  The a better question is
>}why shouldn't they be treated equally?
>
>Because pregnancy is often chosen, whereas disease is rarely by choice.
>

Its interesting you would say this after the argument you were in about
abortion a few weeks ago.

>}>}4)  Sexual harrasment, being defined as an innitiation of force, would be
>}>}compatable with libertarianism.
>}>
>}>Would be, or wouldn't?  If I threaten to harm a woman unless she has sex
>}>with me, that's sexual assault.  We already have laws against it.  If I
>}>tell a woman I'll make her vice president of the company if she has sex
>}>with me, where's the initiation of force?  If I tell her I'll fire her unless
>}>she does, then I'm guilty of breach of contract unless this was one of the
>}>contract terms she gave her informed consent to.
>}>
>}
>}Fair enough, but lets look at a more common scenerio; harrasment by
>}coworkers.  An employee is being harrased by the people working with her. 
>}If this were too men fighting, both would be legally covered.  But with a
>}woman....
>
>Two men?  A CEO has a male secretary.  The CEO is male, and homosexual.  He
>tells the secretary he'll up his christmas bonus for oral sex, and will replace
>him if he doesn't.  This is breach of contract unless part of the terms which
>were consented to on an informed basis.  If it was part of the contract, then
>it's permissible.
>
>I don't see how this would be changed into an initiation of force or fraud
>by making the two parties co-workers.
>

Lets say a coworker threatened you.  Basically this is a criminal offense.
 Woman find being sexual harasassed as upsetting as being threatend.  It
seems only reasonable to give the two equal legal weight.  Rather that
make one a difficult to prove civil issue, and the other a felony.

>}>}5)  Strong penalties for rape.  The Republicans (believe it or not) are the
>}>}only ones who have gotten behind this.
>}>
>}>Fine with me.  However, some places had higher rape penalties than for
>}>murder, which encourages rapists to murder their victims afterwards.  A
>}>sense of proportion must be maintained.
>}>
>}
>}Your comment about murder / rape laws is somewhat true, and is happening a
>}lot especially with regard to armed robbary.  However a murder is much
>}more likely to get caught (the police throw a lot more resources into
>}catching a murderer).  So I don't think this is too much of a problem.  
>
>Actually, this isn't true.  Since there's no victim witness to a murder, it's
>much harder for the perpetrator to be caught.
>
>I did think of another possible position: pemitting juries to define the
>immediateness of a threat by their consciences in cases where women killed
>their husband-batterers, rather than having a definition shoved down their
>throat by the judge.
>

Perhaps a jury selection system has gotten really bad.  But everyone I
know who has seen the jurys at work was unimpressed.  The general feeling
of lwayers.... Is that jurys seem to be little better than descision by
craps, or some equally fair method.  This is a whole nother topic though.
	As for the legal argument, the victums of this crime (woman) want
to see the penalty radically increased.  Seeing as their ones under your
scenerio who would be taking the risk of getting murdered; I can't see why
their views on this matter shouldn't count heavily.

>}>}10)  Have all civil rights legislation apply to woman until repealed.
>}>
>}>What civil rights legislation doesn't apply to women?  And why should we
>}>support extending any legislation that should be repealed?
>}>
>}
>}Most civil rights legislation doesn't apply to woman.  In many capacities
>}where it is illegal to descriminate against blacks it is perfectly legal
>}to descriminate against woman.  For example having a disproportionaltly
>}low percentage of blacks working for a company is considered evidence of
>}discrimination; while the same is not true for woman.
>
>This isn't a result of legislation, but of enforcement guidelines by the
>EEOC.  But it's beside the point: banning private discrimination is un-
>libertarian.  Inequality of such bans is just one more reason to repeal
>them, not a reason to extend this oppression.
>

Fair enough.  Point conceded.

>}>Why should the government be in the insurance business?
>}>
>}
>}I'm not saying they should be, just that birth control shouldn't be
>}treated any different from any other medicine a person has to take.
>
>Fertility isn't an illness, though.
>

Yes but it requires a medication.  It really doesn't matter.

>}>}13)  Ban premarital agreements.  Sounds much less libertarian than it is,
>}>}just define marriage more traditionally as a total joining of two people. 
>}>}then you can't sign any contract with regard to your spouse any more than
>}>}you could with regard to your left leg.
>}>
>}>I disagree with this legal fiction.  Marriage should be privatized into a
>}>contract between the two parties.
>}>
>}
>}In the above policy there aren't two parties once the marriage takes
>}place.  It's just a much stronger definition of marriage, the traditional one.
>
>"Tradition!  Tradition!... If I were a rich man..." Sorry, "Fiddler" flashback.
>I don't like this tradition.  Legal fictions can't erase the fact that there
>are two parties to any marriage.  Historically, the legal fiction of them
>uniting into one has meant that one or the other parties was considered to
>have superior legal status over the other.  Most recently in the USA, husbands
>were considered thus superior to their wives.  This infantilizes the subor-
>dinate party and puts the superior one in the impossible position of being
>responsible for the actions of another adult.
>

I think the big difference here, is a view of marriage.  To repeat my
claim in alternate post:  agreeing to joint bank accounts, living
together, having sex....  These are all agreements between two people,
marriage is an agreement between a couple and society.  The very
definition of marriage incorporates this.  

>}>}14)  end no force divorce.
>}>What is this?
>}
>}A typo, I meant, "no fault divorce".
>
>All right, what's this, and what's unlibertarian about it?

Basically originally when two people got divorced, it was because one of
them, or possibly both had broken their marriage vows.  The division of
the estate, and alimony differed wildly depending on who was at fault.  No
fault divorce attempted to end on this, and say that divorces were
everybody's fault.  The estate gets split up evenly.  Basically nuder no
fault its almost impossible to prove you were wronged.
	A good analogy would be no fault auto laws.  Imagine if the
governemt declared that when an accident occured, both parties were at
fault unless one of them was parked at the time.  Basically woman think
that no fault divorce has hurt their standard of living.  Many want to
return to the old system.

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

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian