No problem! It's been (counts on fingers) 16 years.
Well, in my case it was a simple enough process. It was a restaurant job. Whenever I went downstairs to get a customer's beer, he'd follow me and lock the door behind him. He was the owner's brother. "You'd better be quiet or you'll get fired" is pretty straightforward. It's amazing how little you can do about something like this in a small company. Other than walk away from the job, that is. I knew my parents would want my reason for quitting and by telling the truth, I'd have opened up a huge can of worms-honestly I was mostly afraid my dad would try something violent, and he's SO not up to it. I'm sure the aggressor knew these facts, too. As for his motivations, I think that was pretty simple too. I doubt I was the only one he tried that on. But I was very shy and compliant. He was from India, and told me I was like the women back home.
I worked for a pathetic little man once who only hired young college graduate women, then treated them to a daily ego-power-money display. He insisted on very subservient employees. He was a self-made success in a small way and did not have a degree. I don't know if he ever actually attempted sex with any of the others, but in my case I was disdainful enough that I think I gave him the jitters, so he never tried me. I suspect the combination would have worked on someone who had not had the experience I had had before. Most of the women he hired were financially up a creek (like me) having plenty of student loans and only clerical skills to recommend them, so they'd have some pretty strong reasons for feeling stuck in the job.
Wow, how disgusting. I guess that helps me understand the roots of misandry in women a little better. All the attempts of Hollywood, television and academia haven't curried much sympathy from me because they are so transparently motivated by another agenda (oppressing men as a class). So, thanks for your insight.
Clayton -
No problem. Honestly, I don't think it has to do with being a woman. You can set yourself up for being a victim no matter who you are. I never felt that I was at a disadvantage due to my gender even in workplaces like that. My misfortune was a product of my having walked into the corner I got trapped into; at times that I've avoided the trap, it was because I knew what to look for.
I remember a year or so after that incident I was in college and got asked out on a date by someone I thought was a little creepy. He was insistent though and after a few requests, I agreed. I figured, what's one movie?
Then I found myself in his car in a lonely part of town and suddenly I was SO angry at myself. He was fine, just odd, but I was well aware that I'd screwed up and I never let myself be at another person's mercy again. Lesson learned.
the male patriarchy asks women to be dependant and submissive to the man.
the patriarchal state asks the citizen to be dependant and submisive to the state.
legal equality aks for people to have the autonomy to make their own decisions without needing to be dependant or submissive as a neccessity.
why is this dominance there, is it because of threat of physical violence and coercian, or natural voluntary association without the violation of nap?
if this patriarchy comes down to, males can beat up females and a group of males can beat up a male, and that is nature, then it's not a libertarian recommendation is seems.
maybe separate it to legal egalitarian as the better definition, as in both males and females can homestead and have autonomy in forming contracts.
with this male agression and physical dominance stuff, libertarianism itself is against nature.
You say this as if implicit threats are easily identifiable. If a 200 lb man invites a woman home from the bar, and then proceeds to show her his gun collection and says something like "I always get what I want" -- its not at all clear that he is actually threatening her. At the same time, if the two had sex, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that there was no rape. The line of consent just isn't clear.
I don't know if you have seen this post by LogisticEarth in the Trayvon Martin thread, but I think it applies to this topic too. If you cannot prove that there was a threat, how can you know there was one? Anyway, I want to requote the end of his post:
LogisticEarth: The bottom line is though, we don't know precisely what happened, there is not enough evidence to convict or vindicate, and we must leave it at that unless something new comes to light. The only thing one can do is to draw personal insights from the tragedy, about racial prejudices, about the dangers of escalating situations, and rushing to judgements.
The bottom line is though, we don't know precisely what happened, there is not enough evidence to convict or vindicate, and we must leave it at that unless something new comes to light. The only thing one can do is to draw personal insights from the tragedy, about racial prejudices, about the dangers of escalating situations, and rushing to judgements.
While you might not feel comfortable saying there had not been a rape, you can't say that there was one either - unless new evidence comes to light. With the limited evidence, all we can say is that the woman felt threatened, and that was why she "consented". It would be unfortunate, but without evidence demonstrating that the man threatened her, we cannot know if it was rape.
We oppose coercive laws, even though we recognize that its not the laws themselves that are committing acts of agression. I don't see how this is any different. I mean, we don't just oppose the actions of government agents, we oppose the entire institution. We recognize that the state distorts the market even in indirect ways -- and we don't say "oh man, shame on that businessman for hiring lobbyists to pass bills in favor of his company" -- we say "hey, this whole system of rent seeking is a natural result of the state."
My point is that you cannot interpret every action in terms of that social structure. Just because a woman has sex with a man in a male dominated social structure does not mean she was raped. We should oppose any social structure that includes aggression, but not every action is made in context of that social structure. If a man and woman have sex, whether or not he threatened her can only be determined in that relationship. It cannot be determined based on the existing social structure. The existing social structure is relevant only insofar as that particular man adheres to it.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about this in a legal context. Although I'm pointing out how hard it is to determine whether rape is really occuring or not, my intent isn't to come to some conclusion regarding guilt or how the law should be applied. My point is that insofar as there are cultural norms and social structures which help to blur the lines of consent, we should oppose such things.
Agreed.
@Saiga,gotlucky: Here again is one of the detrimental effects of public law... in a private-law society, it is possible to have "closed door" legal proceedings and also to settle matters without admission of "guilt" of some "crime". Every party to a dispute knows precisely what happened unless they were drugged or unconscious or had amnesia for some other reason. If a man was "insinuating" that a woman "better go along" and she went along out of fear, even if she didn't say the word "no", it is possible that the pangs of conscience might afflict him in a cooler state of mind and under the broad daylight of a mediating third-party.
If a person has the option to say, "I won't admit that I committed a crime but I feel like I might have unintentionally caused you emotional distress, so I will agree to a reasonable settlement on condition that the terms of the arrangement are kept secret", this makes it more likely that someone who has been mildly coerced (i.e. a situation not involving knife, gun, beating, etc.) can get some recompense for the harm that was done. People never voluntarily agree to lose face, so public trial virtually assures legal combat. "I am innocent of all charges and I will prove it!!!!" Rather than drawing out the ego battle in these kinds of sad situations that are probably more common than anyone would like to admit, we need to think about what are the institutions that will enable people to make amends in a reasonable way consistent with human nature.
</soapbox>
Feminism how I see it concluding from their literature and proponents is about making demands towards men, demanding from the state to interfere and act on behalf of women and demolishing female gender roles.
It has become this but it was not always so. If you read the early 19th-century feminists, a lot of the things they were complaining about were a) genuine complaints when measured on the basis of NAP (i.e. on the basis of human rights) and b) a direct or indirect result of State meddling and favoritism towards men.
I am sure those issues existed somewhere, sometime. When I however limit this to the societies feminists appeared and published in, I would like to see examples of:
a) NAP, human rights denied to women as opposed to be granted to men.
b) State meddling/favoritism towards men.
Just pointing out that men were richer and in more powerful positions won't do here, we need a bit more.
http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/2011/oct/16/banewso7-familiarize-yourself-with-womens-property-ar-272071/
here is one example with coverture
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/geweb/PROPERTY.htm another article on coverture
here is one part from the article
Caroline Norton proved to be a catalyst for changing women's property rights laws in Victorian England. Caroline Norton was determined to use her personal misfortune and suffering to gather support for legal reform. She gathered attention and support for her cause through the publication of many pamphlets and the influence of her friends in Parliament. Stetson notes that in 1855, Caroline Norton published her most important pamphlet: A Letter to the Queen on Lord Chancellor Cranworth's Marriage and Divorce Bill, in which she reviewed the position of married women under English law:
1. a married woman has no legal existence whether or not she is living with her husband; 2. her property is his property; 3. she cannot make a will, the law gives what she has to her husband despite her wishes or his behavior; 4. she may not keep her earnings; 5. he may sue for restitution of conjugal rights and thus force her, as if a slave to return to his home; 6. she is not allowed to defend herself in divorce; 7. she cannot divorce him since the House of Lords in effect will not grant a divorce to her; 8. she cannot sue for libel; 9. she cannot sign a lease or transact business; 10. she cannot claim support from her husband, his only obligation is to make sure she doesn't land in the parish poorhouse if he has means; 11. she cannot bind her husband to any agreement. In short, as her husband, he has the right to all that is hers; as his wife she has no right to anything that is his. (33)
2. her property is his property;
3. she cannot make a will, the law gives what she has to her husband despite her wishes or his behavior;
4. she may not keep her earnings;
5. he may sue for restitution of conjugal rights and thus force her, as if a slave to return to his home;
6. she is not allowed to defend herself in divorce;
7. she cannot divorce him since the House of Lords in effect will not grant a divorce to her;
8. she cannot sue for libel;
9. she cannot sign a lease or transact business;
10. she cannot claim support from her husband, his only obligation is to make sure she doesn't land in the parish poorhouse if he has means;
11. she cannot bind her husband to any agreement.
In short, as her husband, he has the right to all that is hers; as his wife she has no right to anything that is his. (33)
cab21:is there not victomology in talking about the abuse of power from the state and lack of consent of the governed?
Feminists might say that a woman who is thought of as an object by men is a victim. Libertarians would say she's not, but that if one of those men is imprisoned for having such thoughts, or for employing the pretty secretary over the ugly one, then he is a victim. This is an illustration of the difference between the Leftist and libertarian concepts of victimhood. The libertarian victim has had his or her property rights violated. The Leftist victim has not. What exactly counts as a victim is vaguely defined by the Left, if defined at all in a systematic way, and the concept keeps expanding.
Anenome:The left has corrupted the concept of rights into positive rights.
Yep, a corrupted concept of rights is the flip-side of their corrupted concept of victimhood. All those (imaginary) victims acquire (imaginary) rights. The victims of poverty acquire a right to steal (welfare), et al.
As I've said many time before, I applaud feminism insofar as its object is to gain for woman legitimate rights which they are currently being denied (e.g. the right to travel freely without a male chaperone), just as I would applaud anyone trying to gain for anyone legitimate rights which they are being denied. However, this does not seem to be the primary interest of feminists. They seem less interested in actual rights violations against women occurring elsewhere in the world than with establishing for women in the West imaginary, positive rights: affirmative action, time off work for pregnancy, free birth control, etc, etc, etc. As such, I regard them as little more than another special interest group lobbying the State for privileges. I don't see how libertarians can have any common ground with that.
As for the corruption of the concepts of victim and right, I personally blame John Stuart Mill. Ralph Raico explains it in this lecture.
i dont think feminism has one point of view on everything, but rather many people with different values and goals. i don't think libertarians is one single position, at least i have seen debates between minarchy and anarchy and ip and no ip so so on.
saying legal equality is good does not need to be clumped together to saying something like all vaginas should have the same shape in some absurd notion that everything about everyone be literaly the same. people can have the same legal rights and be different.
a man thinking a women is a object does not violate legal rights of that women,, but a man acting like it can mean actions that violate that women. a man building on top of what a woman has homesteaded as if the women does not exist is violating the legal rights of that women. a man that won't recognise a womens ability to own property or enter contracts would be a violation of legal equality. seeing something as alienable for a women but inalienable for a man could be another example of legal inequality.
cab21,
I'm sorry, but what's your point? Feminism has no unifying ideology, is just a grab-bag of random views with some relation to women, and therefore nothing can be said about it? If so, then what is the purpose of this thread? LOL
my point was that legal equality can be separated from other aspects such as economic equality. a libertiarian feminist would focus on legal equality and say the state should not be involved in some economic wealth redistribution program.
the libertarian feminist would not have these positive rights and entitlements that the social justice feminist would have.
http://www.alf.org/
this groups purpose says:
Well sure, that's what a "libertarian feminist" would have to be, but if you strip out the Leftist doctrine from what feminism actually is in practice in the year of our Lord 2012, I'm not sure there's much remaining. That is, I don't know that's its useful to even call "libertarian feminism" feminism. It's sort of like stripping out the Leftist doctrine from Economic Justice Theory and calling it libertarian economic justice theory. Seems like a misnomer to me.
Moreover, all libertarians have those views which you ascribe to libertarian feminism. You could say that a "libertarian feminist" is just a libertarian who happens to focus primarily on the oppression of women for some reason or another. As there are libertarians who happen to focus on the oppression of Americans, or certain kinds of oppression: central banking, or taxation, or the drug laws, et al. I don't see the value in creating an -ism for each of these subsets of libertarianism.
Nomenclature controversies aside, I don't see any possibility of those persons in reality who actually self-ascribe as feminists finding much common ground with libertarians, because, as I suggest, they are almost universally of a Leftist bent. I dare say they care more about their Leftist causes than about women as such.
well i do think there are libertarians that say don't depend on government, but find a man to give your wealth to, and accept a allowence and give him control, as this is nature, for you to submit to man as it is mans burdon to take care of you.
that could be different from
don't depend on government, find autonomy and make the choices you want to make, and keep the ability to thrive as a human individual in your relationships.
so i think that creates a difference in what kind of social structure different libertarians recommend as best practice social technology. so the acheivement of voluntary interaction is there, i do think there would be different groups competing for philosophy of how to act without a state.
http://www.alf.org/fembusinesses.php this article has some of that
the mises website puts up articles by gary north
www.garynorth.com/covenants.pdf one book i found, and he says stuff like. i figure a feminist can be another voice in libertarian , although i'm not sure how libertarian gary north is.
Women in the family are subordinate to men: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" page 37
How do we know, if this is a fair reflection on the situation then. Most of it sounds to me like a community of goods issue.
@Torsten: I think the existence of the Malleus Maleficarum is enough to give the basic idea of the problems in the legal status of women in parts of Europe (for example) circa 500 years ago. While this is an extreme example, these kinds of social problems where a certain ethnicity or sex is presumed guilty upon accusation (the "where there's smoke, there's fire" principle) have been persistent throughout human history. The racial rights and women's rights activists are talking about real problems which is why trite dismissals are not the answer.
Just quoting anecdotal evidence as from witch craft trials or innuendo (the "where there's smoke, there's fire" principle, you yourself mentioned) doesn't really do it. This only became notorious with the early modern era and didn't actually have a lot to do with the "oppression of women". To the contrary jealous women were often the driving force behind such accusations.
The rest of your argument can also be turned around as well. Perhaps there is some real problems behind the hostility against specific ethnicities by the larger population they reside among? So outright dismissal isn't the answer. And perhaps there are good reasons for patriarchy as well.
@Torsten: Well, you're beating the air with your fists as I don't buy into the "battle of the sexes" narrative. I'm not going to go around digging up cites and sources to prove an indisputable fact such as the prevalence of legally deprivileged groups, including women. If you want to play "skeptic", be my guest.
And I nearly thought I did hit something hard :) For a group to be de-priviledged they first must have had legitimately and legally have had these priviledges. That's usually not the case with groups that demand priviledges nowadays. And perhaps that was exactly where the issue lay. During the recovery of Europe specific groups, or at least their males, gained certain legal priviledges as for instance expressed in nobility, priesthood and certain professions and crafts. Judging about that would of course first require to have some background knowledge on the social and political thought of that era. Making modern assumption about this, will for sure lead to some distorted view on it.
I think modern approaches to feminism and race relations doom itself by insisting on polylogism which make any coherent conversation impossible. Though I don't think many who claim to understand both seem to be looking for any attempt at a conversation anyway.
not sure how much the anti-feminism groups apply universality to humans.
what applies to men does not apply to women in groups like that.
we have the "god made woman to serve man" group
we have the "nature made women to serve man" group
each tell women to serve man and apply different values to women than men.
a independant man is good, a independant women is bad under such systems.
a male leader is good and a female leader is bad under such systems