NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/politics/libertar/2986

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 7.3 KB | 166 lines

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: [e-mail] (Chris Croughton)
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!keris.demon.co.uk!chris
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Distribution: world
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Lines: 152
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:24:36 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
            [e-mail] writes:

OK, as one of the people who started this topic, my opinions (for what
they're worth - $0.02 in gold, perhaps <g>?).

First, a disclaimer - I'm British, and some of what I say may not apply
to American law.  I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party (or any
other political party).  I'm male, single, white, heterosexual, and a
computer programmer (all obviosly bad to certain people).

[On feminism in general]

One problem that I have wit hthe feminist 'movement' is that it seeks to
force all women into one 'mould'.  I know a lot of women who don't fit
that mould - they are immediately branded as 'brainwashed' by society
because they would rather bear and look after children than go out to
'work'.  While the same feminists who are saying that a woman 'should'
go out to work deride men who look after the children (so that the wife
can go out to work) as being lazy in staying home.

These sorts of attitudes (and the ones attempting to treat any
heterosexual activity as 'rape') are in my opinion obviously
non-libertarian (hereafter referred to as 'non-lib').  I hasten to add
that not all feminists of my aquaintance have these opinions, but they
*are* the ones which get into the media, and blacken the image of the
movement.

[Explicit points]

>1)  Woman in combat.

I disapprove of women in combat, but then I disapprove of men in combat
as well.  To discriminate on the grounds of ability, however, is
non-lib.  And don't tell me that women are 'weaker' and can't do the
job...

>2)  Woman and the draft, the platform does oppose the draft; but it should
>say "repeal the draft, that failling have woman participate fully".

Just repeal the draft would do, but I agree that forcing the public to
realise that women weren't exempt may well achieve more public support
for this goal.

>3)  All laws currently protected the sick apply to the pregnant.

This is a dodgy one.  Becoming pregnant 'by accident' should be treated
like any other accident, including an investication by the insurers as
to whether it was by carelessness (for instance, if I'm not wearing the
proper safety gear for a job, the insurers are within their rights to
say "Sorry, our insurance states that it's void if you don't take
precautions".  Same with condoms / the pill etc.).  However, my
understanding would be that libertarianism would indeed say "use the
*same* laws", including fraud if an 'accident' is deliberate to claim
insurance or get off work.

>4)  Sexual harrasment, being defined as an innitiation of force, would be
>compatable with libertarianism.

I think you meant 'Laws against sexual harrasment...' but I would agree
that it's a form of non-physical assault, and therefore an infringement
of rights.  Of course, if the 'harrasment' were physical (the touching
and pinching that goes on in some offices) then that constitutes
actual assault and thus directly comes under the infringement of
personal rights.

>5)  Strong penalties for rape.  The Republicans (believe it or not) are the
>only ones who have gotten behind this.

Same as for assault, see above.  I do *not* agree with the claim of some
feminists that all heterosexual activity is rape, however.

>6)  Unequal laws with regard to dress codes on public property (the whole
>topless NY. debate).

I'd like some info. on this debate, but I agree that laws about dress
codes should be dropped, totally.  If a woman wants to go out topless it
should be treated the same as a man doing so.

"But isn't she inviting intimacy?"  Yes, in the same way that I'm
inviting robbery if I go out wearing valuable jewelry.

>7)  The ERA.

Dunno.

>8)  Insist that military make some of its combat equipment usable by
>your average woman.  For example many planes are designed so that piolet
>can be optimum height plus or minus 2".  Set the optimum height on one one
>of the planes (say the A-10) to 5'3".

See my comments about military above.  But I'm interested in the height
chosen - are American women really that much smaller than the men?  If
so, I'm coming over <g>...

>9)  Have UN sanctions regarding violations of human rights abroad apply to
>crimes against woman (for example female circumcision).

The LP manifesto states that there should be no involvement in other
countries' problems (words to that effect), so in that sense, no.
However I personally condemn the practice (female circumcision) and
would not knowingly trade with or support anyone who practiced it.  My
choice, however, not the LP.

>10)  Have all civil rights legislation apply to woman until repealed.
>11)  Ban state agencies from regulating abortion.
>12)  Consider birth control with all other devices for purposes fo insurance.

In as much as the idea is to get rid of the legislation in these areas
as a goal, forcing it to apply equally is one way of swinging public
opinion to do that (i.e. reductio ad absurdam).

>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.

NO!  When two people are married they are NOT one person, physically or
emotionally.  Libertarianism states that every person is a distinct
individual, and that 'traditional' view of marriage is totally contrary
to that.

The way that I (and it seems most libs) would choose is to make it
purely a contractual agreement between the two parties, renegotiable if
circumstances change (like children).  It could be put in time-limited
terms if wanted (like "Until the children are adult") or could specify
conditions ("No children" or "Void if no children within 5 years"), but
it would be purely up to the people involved to specify those
conditions.

Any religious aspect would also be up to the individuals - the *only*
state involvement should be in witnessing and enforcing the contract (if
it was broken), the same as for any civil contract.

>14)  end no force / fault divorce.

Comes under the last one.  Basically, if a contract is broken, it should
be dealt with in the way provided for by that contract.  If there are no
provisions in the contract then it is 'amicable', and should be solved
the same way as a working partnership (or small company) splitting.


So, do I agree with you?  That libertarians should make more effort to
make the compatible views public, certainly.  And there do seem to be a
lot of compatible views with much of the non-extremist "women's rights"
movement.

***********************************************************************
*  [e-mail]      *                                     *
*  [e-mail]  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  [e-mail]   *                                     *
***********************************************************************