Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Feminist Misrepresentation in Libertarianism

rated by 0 users
This post has 90 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert Posted: Sun, Jan 6 2013 3:56 PM

How Slut Shaming Undermines Liberty.  I've been keeping tabs on some online criticism from The Skeptical Libertarian and Steve Horwitz that's in reaction to Julie Borowskie and Tom Woods, of which I stand in the feminist side of this (as some would know, and if you didn't know now you do).  This article touches up on the current posts being thrown around.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 125
Not Ranked
Posts 48
Points 760
Maynard replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 4:30 PM

Bert, what right does anybody have to a reputation? If you sleep around you sleep around. Be prepared to be called on it. If you don't but still get called derogatory names, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to prove it. And if you do prove it, your accusers are now liars with no friends (despite their apparent "popularity"). Besides, most people who "slut shame" are those who need to point out others' "deficiencies" to hide their own. And in my expeience most of these are what are known as "compassionate conservatives". I highly doubt slut shaming is the or even a reason for lack of a female representation in libertarianism. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Oh God, how is this thing being blown up into such a big deal? Essentially every big name libertarian has decided to chime in.

Shaming isn't illegal, but it's obviously detrimental to the cause.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 6:25 PM

Hmmm, I don't think there is any obviously libertarian position either way. Neither having casual sex, nor denigrating those who do is "aggression". While there are reasonable feminist moral critiques of female-degrading language, there are also reasonable, traditional-moral critiques of loose sexuality. It is not at all clear to me that either side is obviously right... there are compelling reasons that women (for their own sake) may want to be sexually chaste. Of course, women have never actually been chaste... promiscuity, prostitution, homosexuality and other fringe sexual behaviors have traditionally been relegated to the shadows or the gray market, and so on. The modern world is only a very recent exception and only in very limited geographical areas of the globe.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

I actually agree in parts with all of the parties involved.

—I think Borowski is right in that females do tend to place a lot of weight (considerably more than male counterparts) on being socially accepted and they therefore might be more influenced by what is considered "mainstream".  I think this is a legitimate point (evidently more or less backed by scientific evidence), and a perfectly reasonable explanation to the question at hand.

—I think Skwire/Horwitz make a good point about Borowski seeming to lodge much of the same criticism toward females that conservatives hurl at women all the time (i.e. things that have little to nothing to do with libertarian principles).  I also don't really disagree with the overall point that Borowski is ultimately making fun of and denigrating women, and then asking why more of them don't jump on her ideological bandwagon.  Making a video like the one she made, while it doesn't pretend to be a marketing spot for libertarianism, doesn't seem to be so much concerned with actually bringing more women into the fold as it does with simply venting the filmmaker's personal resentment.  While there's nothing ethically wrong with this (i.e. make any video complaining about women all you want, that's your business), it isn't exactly a good advertising strategy...and therefore I agree with the notion that at least part of the answer to the question asked in the video, is answered by the video itself.

—I tend to agree with Woods in his assessment of these so-called "thick libertarians", in that they seem to believe "if you really want to promote liberty you can’t just oppose the state. You have to oppose 'the patriarchy,' embrace countercultural values, etc.  Then, once libertarianism has been made to seem as freakish and anti-bourgeois as possible, these same people turn around and blame the rest of us for why the idea isn’t more popular."  It's similar to the kind of thing encapsulated with the term "lifestyle libertarian" I mentioned here, when speaking of Gary Johnson.  I think the piece linked there (and the piece linked in the piece linked there), as well as the definition of "left-libertarian" offered here give a pretty good summation:

[1] Judging by Reason Magazine’s “35 Heroes of Freedom,” “cool and cosmopolitan” encompasses William Burroughs, a drug addled, Beat-Generation wife killer, whose “work is mostly gibberish and his literary influence baleful.” … Madonna Reason has exalted for, as they put it, leading “MTV’s glorious parade of freaks, gender-benders, and weirdos who helped broaden the palette of acceptable cultural identities and destroy whatever vestiges of repressive mainstream sensibilities still remained.” That sounds like the unscrambled, strange dialect spoken by a professor of Women’s and Gender Studies. [Or is it "Wimmin's Studies"?]

Much as the left does, libertarians-lite divine, in the country’s founding documents, all kinds of exhortations to let it all hang out.

[2] Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.

—I agree with Goodman on his assessment of slut shaming.  Personally I did get the impression that that's what Borowski was doing.  Granted, as Goodman admits, "all she said was that media promotes casual sex and that casual sex is not empowering.  It could be argued that Borowski was just making a point that many feminist media critics have also made."  But also as he pointed out, "Borowski made her point in a way that easily could also be seen as denigrating women who choose casual sex and makeup, thus furthering a cultural climate of slut shaming."  And that's exactly what I got from it.  The overall negative tone (literal and otherwise) with which she made that statement relayed quite clearly to me that she has a problem with causual sex (or at least with females having casual sex), and that anyone who does engage in such activity is inferior in some way.  And I'm sure that's at least partially why Catholic Tom Woods felt the need to defend her on this, as I'm sure he shares that sentiment (as, sexual acts of virtually any kind are considered a sin within the Catholic faith.)

Ultimately I don't think Woods has a problem with slut shaming because he personally believes casual sex is an immoral act and therefore should be shuned...and any indignation or "calling out" of such behavior is at the very least, appropriate.  (This is supported by his sarcastic rhetorical: "Doesn’t Julie know that such behavior, far from being a 'cause for shame,' is just one of the 'complex choices that smart, thoughtful women can and do make'?")

What's ironic about this aspect is that it actually emphasizes and illustrates the exact preoccupation with social acceptance that Borowski was talking about:  In the very video where she was denigrating women for having casual sex (in all likelihood, knowing how powerful and effecting slut shaming can be), she was also calling women out for being so obsessed with socially accepted norms.  So in a way, she was exploiting the very shortcoming she was criticizing them for, to drive her own moral viewpoint directly into the emotional psyche of any women hapless enough to be watching.

It's actually quite diabolical.

Bottom line is,

Borowski's reasoning is probably at least partially right...there probably are less female libertarians at least to some degree because libertarianism isn't mainstream and women have a harder time being associated with things that are not completely — or at least largely — socially accepted.  However, her examples to support this conjecture (and the way they are presented) sound a lot less like simple support for her claim, and a lot more like personal judgements against women for personal choices that the narrator disagrees with.  At the same time, as Woods tangentially implies (but never actually says), there's certainly nothing wrong or "unlibertarian" about that.  Borowski is perfectly within her rights to denigrate whomever she wants, for any reason.  But at the same time, one can't deny that such denigration isn't going to be found very inviting to would-be libertarian females...the kind Borowski is lamenting the lack of.  And finally, one does have to consider just how moral or ethical such denigration is when it pertains to behaviors that do not violate NAP. 

While I can understand a religious person's condemnation of perfectly ethical behavior (by libertarian standards) on moral religious grounds, I don't quite see how doing so is very beneficial to liberty, or its growth in popularity and acceptance.  As Goodman points out, at least in this case, it is quite harmful, not only to the health of the philosophy in society, but to individuals themselves.

 

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 806
Points 12,855

John James... it's Wymen's Studies.

If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 9:17 PM
I think the technical answer would be that none of us have any reason to say how its spelled, because of the tyranny of paternalistic language etc. However I think everyone knows that womens studies, however it is spelt, is a pointless major. This isnt to say its easy. Its actually thick to the point of absurdity. Go read some threads on the ms. Magazine forums if you dont know what I am talking about. But it isnt productive. Which is why they (some libruls) want to raise tuition on hard sciences and not on liberal arts majors, like comparative lit and history.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 10:20 PM

(as, sexual acts of virtual any kind are considered a sin within the Catholic faith.)

LOL - Saint Augustine explains that lust even between those who are married is a sin... but it's only a venial sin and it is pardoned by God on account of the fact of the marriage:

Chapter 16 [XIV.]— A Certain Degree of Intemperance is to Be Tolerated in the Case of Married Persons; The Use of Matrimony for the Mere Pleasure of Lust is Not Without Sin, But Because of the Nuptial Relation the Sin is Venial.

 

But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence. 1 Corinthians 7:5 For thus says the Scripture: Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that you may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 1 Corinthians 7:3-6 Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh— and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.

 

Clayton -

 

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 10:50 PM

I was going to type out a bunch of stuff, but I see that JJ already filled that spot, but I will post The Skeptical Libertarian's first line of criticism directed towards Borowski:

I know many female libertarians, and as far as I know, not one of them embraced classical liberalism because they rejected expensive clothes or makeup. I also know many liberal and conservative women, but they disagree with me because they have sincere and genuinely thoughtful differences of opinion on matters of fact and philosophy, not because they are brainwashed social conformists.

I try to do my opponents the courtesy of addressing them as adults and criticizing their points rather than their taste in magazines or their sex life. I would be pretty annoyed if, instead of responding to my actual positions, another person discussed me as though I was an unreconstructed blob of automata whose beliefs were poured in it wholesale by "the media" or "Hollywood" or my parents or "society." No one will take you seriously until you treat them seriously.

Either you get the meaning of this or you don't.  I think many people are "reactionary" (knee-jerk type of reactionary) to feminist critiques of culture that address slut shaming and rape culture, because said individuals generally accept the status quo of culture as defualt, or "that's the way it is", and this is why such things as Slut Walk appear to confront this attitude.  That, or maybe said individuals have never been exposed or thought outside of their views to think about it.

One doesn't have to sleep around to be called a slut, and it's a double standard because the negative connotation is less applied to men than women.  This idea of shaming is different than shaming a criminal or someone who has a vice, because there's no crime committed, it's behavior in language that in itself is negative in violent in nature.  But slut shaming is not the reason for the lack of female libertarians, but concerns of our female counterparts should be more so taken into consideration, and the cultural oppression of women through language and behavior is one of the main topics to be addressed.

I think why there's no appeal to libertarianism is the subjectivity of culture and a shift in worldview, because culture in itself can be abstract.  As where libertarians can make very structured and convincing arguments in economics and political philosophy (and human nature), they generally seem to be culturally conservative.  I always felt that this the defining line of "left" and "right" libertarians.

Also, I'll add this picture:

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 10:53 PM

It presumes that your natural state is RAPIST.

I'm really busted up to admit this, but some of "us" are actually rapists.

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:08 PM

That meme is idiotic. Just replace "men" with "people" and "rape" with "mugging". It IS stupid to dress and act certain ways in certain places... I mean, this is just braindead.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:11 PM

I wouldn't take that quote objectively, but it's something that I found interesting.  I've come across many people who agree that "rape culture" does exist, but have a very "that's just the way it is" mentality, and in turn accept that by default as the status quo, instead of fighting that attitude.  If one applied a libertarian attitude to that I don't think one would be so willing to accept something that can change as simply the way it is, even though it's heinous.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:13 PM

Thank you.

This feminist movement is like a revolt against crime in general, but narrowed down to crimes specific to women. It's as though their own preoccupation with their identities has women has let the entire notion of danger or malice fly completely over their heads. Exactly what good does it do to tell rapists, pre-rape, in a mass-media spectacle, that they ought not to rape? It's all the more bizarre because the moral deterrent here isn't "Rape is wrong" but "I am a woman." Braindead is an excellent way to describe it.

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:17 PM

Clayton, I don't know if you're familiar with Slut Walk, but look up how it started.  It's in reaction to the idea of "if you did not dress that way, then you would not get raped."  (If I remember correctly a cop or judge said this in regards to a rape case in Canada, where it started.)  What pictures I've seen of Slut Walk are many women (and men) who are dressed in either very scandalous clothing, or normal clothes, holding various signs.  The most interesting were people holding signs saying "this is what I was wearing when I was raped/molested" while the person holding the sign was wearing normal clothes.  It defeats the notion.

Many people make the argument about how one was dressed in a certain situation, but I have many female friends who were raped/molested and it had nothing to do with how they were dressed or partying.  I have friends who were in abusive relationships or simply forced to have sex, they were of good character, and yet degraded.  The worst situation I know of is a friend who had a gun put to her head while the person told her that she can either go down on him, or get a bullet through her head (imagine that in the most vulgar statement possible).  She ended up going to a mental hospital some time after.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:20 PM

It's all the more bizarre because the moral deterrent here isn't "Rape is wrong" but "I am a woman." Braindead is an excellent way to describe it.

And here is the "reaction" to what people think feminism is, not what it really is.  The actual case is rape is wrong, for everyone.  This is why a lot of women find libertarianism a bit...unappealing.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:29 PM

@Bert: I never said otherwise. The meme is not claiming that it's false to assert that all or even most rapes occur because of what you were wearing/etc. It's claiming that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go (thus, who you associate with) affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime (rape, in this particular instance) which is just... idiotic. And, what's worse, it's not even attempting to present facts or reasons to support the argugment, it's simply stating this in some kind of bizarre class appeal to males qua males.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:36 PM

I'm picking up a different claim than that, I'm getting that women should not change their actions to prevent rape - on the assumption their actions initiate rape - when it's completely the will of the rapist to rape.*  If a woman is a neutral variable, and a man rapes her, it's not the woman's fault she was raped, it was the man's fault because he raped.  It's generally assumed the woman brings it on her self (as brought up by many judges in many court cases).

*This has to do with a shift in attitude towards rape and behavior.  Instead of telling people not to rape, you're telling potential victims to change their behavior to not get raped, but accepting the status quo of rape culture.

(I'm going to bed, work at 5 am, more in the morning on this.)

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sun, Jan 6 2013 11:49 PM

People are already told not to rape. It's called the law. You rape, you go to jail. If a woman is a rape-risk minimizer, then she will not dress as if she were loose or trashy.

In which court cases, in the US, was the legal burden placed on the victim of the rapist?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 275
Points 4,000

Tell you what, if what this Julie character said gets you bothered, I don't want to extend an invitation to you for dialog, let alone continued association. Just piss right the f*** off. Because frankly, I don't think I could complete a sentence without "offending" you. But what really leaves a handprint on my forehead is how 'rape' is brought into every single conversation about anything dealing with gender, even remotely.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 2:19 AM

"It's generally assumed the woman brings it on her self (as brought up by many judges in many court cases)."

Check your facts, bro. What happened between 1983 and 1986 that caused men to commit twice as many rapes in 1986 as in 1983?? Maybe this played some role?

"Instead of telling people not to rape, you're telling potential victims to change their behavior to not get raped, but accepting the status quo of rape culture."

Do you really think that rape occurs because of what people do or don't say?? Do you really believe that what people say can influence rape upwards or downwards? If so, what is the causal mechanism?

Advising people to adjust their behavior for their own safety is not "blaming the victim", it's just common sense. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, don't walk around with a gold watch flashing on your wrist for all to see. It's just plain dumb.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 2:31 AM

I also don't really disagree with the overall point that Borowski is ultimately making fun of and denigrating women,


You "dont really disagree"? So you 'disagree, but not really'? You 'unreally disagree'? Or do you just 'agree'?

"Don't really disagree" is a very weak and cautious way of stating your position. Maybe you're stating it in this way because you're actually aware there is nothing to support it? Denigrating women is quite the acussation. How about you refresh our memories and come up with a quote from the video to this effect? That is if you can support your accusation?

and then asking why more of them don't jump on her ideological bandwagon.


Nonsense. She isn't asking, she is answering.

Making a video like the one she made, while it doesn't pretend to be a marketing spot for libertarianism, doesn't seem to be so much concerned with actually bringing more women into the fold as it does with simply venting the filmmaker's personal resentment.


You're overanalysing. The video is exactly what it "pretends" to be. An attempt to shed light on a specific question in a fun package.

While there's nothing ethically wrong with this (i.e. make any video complaining about women all you want, that's your business), it isn't exactly a good advertising strategy...


It's not a video complaining about women. In as much as it is complaining about anything it is complaining about the agenda of the "popular culture liberal-feminist women's magazines".

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 2:35 AM

How Slut Shaming Undermines Liberty.  I've been keeping tabs on some online criticism from The Skeptical Libertarian and Steve Horwitz that's in reaction to Julie Borowskie and Tom Woods, of which I stand in the feminist side of this (as some would know, and if you didn't know now you do).  This article touches up on the current posts being thrown around.


What a dishonest article. The author states "Whether she [Borowski] promoted slut shaming in it is debatable." In fact there is nothing debatable about this. She did not and I believe tha author knows this, because there simply isn't anything in her video that could be sincerely constructed as such. Only he decides to pretend it may sincerely be seen in that way, because otherwise he has nothing to write about and no reason to complain, and because otherwise he would be pulling the ground out from his mentor Horwitz.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 2:49 AM

Clayton, I don't know if you're familiar with Slut Walk, but look up how it started.  It's in reaction to the idea of "if you did not dress that way, then you would not get raped."  (If I remember correctly a cop or judge said this in regards to a rape case in Canada, where it started.)  What pictures I've seen of Slut Walk are many women (and men) who are dressed in either very scandalous clothing, or normal clothes, holding various signs.  The most interesting were people holding signs saying "this is what I was wearing when I was raped/molested" while the person holding the sign was wearing normal clothes.  It defeats the notion.


And what a bunch of cretins those are. Getting all sort of annual marches for scores of years over what some copper up there in the North American tundra once said. That shows just how some people thirst to be able to set themselves up as a victimized and opressed class.

In any case I don't get the feeling those marchers have much in common with women who actually do dress up provocatively in real life, (and not on some idiotic marches). I don't think they speak for them in any meaningful way, or share similar concerns and views of society and of men. You have to have a truly warped view of men to believe some statement by some Canadian copper is somehow indicative of some great general danger men pose to women, whereas to dress sexily in RL on the contrary takes a woman which feels safe and catered to when around men.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 4:13 AM

"Borowski made her point in a way that easily could also be seen as denigrating women who choose casual sex and makeup, thus furthering a cultural climate of slut shaming."  And that's exactly what I got from it. The overall negative tone (literal and otherwise) with which she made that statement relayed quite clearly to me that she has a problem with causual sex (or at least with females having casual sex), and that anyone who does engage in such activity is inferior in some way.


She isn't talking about women who choose this or that. She is talking about the message that is being transmitted to women in mainstream popular women's magazines. What I got from it, is that this airhead message is irksome and insults the intelligence of its target population by adressing them as if adressing a horde of bimbos and she is irked by that and rebelling against it.

So actually it's extremely women-patronizing of Horwitz to jump to the defense of women against Borowski's rebellion. Here is Borowski saying let's throw this worthless patronizing mainstream pulp away. But instead of offering support Horwitz has to jump in to scold Borowski that by speaking out against this crap she may be offending those who will be left behind. And why does he do that?

Because his precious feelings and cultural biases were hurt when Borowski took a pot shot at "liberal-feminist views" and stated she doesn't find casual sex empowering. His thought police alarm switched on when somebody stated an unathorized opinion! Feminist Horwitz will take a stand with the airhead women's magazines the feminists have been railing against for decades if only they are opposed by someone who seems to be a cultural conservative and gives a thumb down to casual sex.

In fact if Horwitz feels that Borowski, by merely saying she doesn't think casual sex empowers women, denigrates women who do engage in casual sex then that is revealing of Horwitz's own latent feelings on the matter. There is no reason for a woman who has casual sex and is assured of her choices and thus disagrees with Borowski's views on the matter to feel insulted or "denigrated" by what Borowski has said. If Horwitz thinks such a woman should feel as having been denigrated by a difference in opinion and in personal choices then that just goes to point Horwitz somewhere in the back of his confused and petty mind thinks Borowoski after all is somehow superior and more virtous than such a woman.

And I'm sure that's at least partically why Catholic Tom Woods felt the need to defend her on this, as I'm sure he shares that sentiment (as, sexual acts of virtual any kind are considered a sin within the Catholic faith.)


Yes, Catholic Tom Woods feels women who engage in casual sex are inferior. :rolleyes: Actually I'm sure Tom Woods as a rare good Catholic hates the sin, but not the sinner. A sinner isn't an inferior human being in Christianity. Strawmanning a religion with 2 billion adherents — how's that for ambition.

What's ironic about this aspect is that it actually emphasizes and illustrates the exact preoccupation with social acceptance that Borowski was talking about:  In the very video where she was denigrating women for having casual sex (in all likelihood, knowing how powerful and effecting slut shaming can be), she was also calling women out for being so obsessed with socially accepted norms.  So in a way, she was exploiting the very shortcoming she was criticizing them for, to drive her own moral viewpoint directly into the emotional psyche of any women hapless enough to be watching.

It's actually quite diabolical.


How patronizing of you. "Hapless women" who can't resist Borowski's "diabolical" attempt to manipulate and imprint their "emotional psyche".

How about granting her female viewers some agency and thinking of them as adults with a functioning brain? You being so sensitive to someone who would denigrate women and all that?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 4:47 AM

What a stupid meme. "Men should be OFFENDED when someone claims that women should prevent rape". Men should be OFFENDED, do you hear that! You are a man, no? So be OFFENDED! Why aren't you OFFENDED yet?!

It goes to show the true purpose of this idiotic movement. Its first purpose is to find something to be offended about. It's second to find an excuse to be all preachy toward men. Well I'm a man, and I'm tired of being preached to. Least of all by hyper-sensitive perennially-offended crusading airheads.

I'm not into being offended. And I'm not into being told I should feel offended, or being told what I should feel in general. I find this culture of seeking out things to be offended by pathetic and undignified. I feel extreme dislike of busybodies who are dying to set themselves up as morally indignant preachers to the vulgar and the desanitized unwashed (whether men, workers, Balkanites or whatever...).


An individual has an absolute right not to be raped. Ergo an individual has an absolute right not to be raped wearing a bikini. That's it! That's all anybody needs to say. Next topic!

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 8:08 AM

Check your facts, bro.

Everyday.  Are you telling me that you've never read about a case where the judge blames the victim?  This happens now, and it's from the culturally conservative (and might I say patriarchal) views of the judges.

Do you really think that rape occurs because of what people do or don't say?? Do you really believe that what people say can influence rape upwards or downwards? If so, what is the causal mechanism?

Learned negative behavior that's reinforced through language; when teenagers have the assumption that it's okay to use words like slut, whore, and rape in a casual way to describe women.  (In a sort of related way I had watched a lecture few years back of Gloria Steinem on pornography and it's inluence on the behavior of how people treat the other sex, indirectly there was a piece on the influence of pornograpy on tribal cultures that had no access to it til modern technology, and the behavior of teenage males became more abusive towards women in those cultures - there was a distinction in behavior in pre-porn and post-porn viewing.)

Advising people to adjust their behavior for their own safety is not "blaming the victim", it's just common sense.

No, blaming the victim is blaming the victim, and telling the victim to adjust their behavior, and not the negative behavior of those with sexist views is only accepting the status quo "as is".

If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, don't walk around with a gold watch flashing on your wrist for all to see. It's just plain dumb.

A majority of cases of rape and molestation are done to those who were not in dangerous situations, they were done in "normal" circumstances.  To assume that the majority of rapes occured because there was already a situation of risk involved is naive and insulting.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 135

"To assume that the majority of rapes occured because there was already a situation of risk involved is naive and insulting."

Looks like you're the one doing the assuming since he didn't say that at all.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator

Right on Marko.

@ Clayton,

Your assessment of Augustine is correct however his main influence in this regard was his former Manichaeism which saw the material as evil and spirit as the only good rather than the Biblical texts. It is true though many of the patristics held a similar view which was hang over from Platonism.

Here's Paul from 1st Corinthians 7:5

"Stop depriving one another (married couples), except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Paul essentially says that married couples should have regular sex so that the Devil doesn't come between them.

Paul 1 Augustine 0

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 12:21 PM

@Physio: Augustine quotes the passage from Paul that you mentioned and puts it down to a divine concession within the confines of marriage. To translate his argument to modern language, he's saying that of course the sex drive is essential to human reproduction and, thus, for those without the gift of abstinence and within the confines of marriage (living together), concupisence will arise. While it is still sin, it is venial sin and is (automatically?) pardoned on account of the nuptial relation. He puts Paul in context in section 17... basically, continence is better than marital concupisence but marital concupisence is better than fornication.

"many of the patristics held a similar view which was hang over from Platonism."

+1

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 12:35 PM

@Bert: Well, I'd like to see some specific instances of judges blaming the victim in rape cases and some statistics showing this is actually a serious problem (i.e. not just some redneck podunk asshole judge being his asshole-y self).

"Learned negative behavior that's reinforced through language;"

You have to be kidding me. So you see no connection between, say, the animal reproductive instinct and rape??

As for the tribal porn thing, again, you have to be kidding me... words fail.

"No, blaming the victim is blaming the victim, and telling the victim to adjust their behavior, and not the negative behavior of those with sexist views is only accepting the status quo "as is"."

No, common sense advice is common sense advice. If you're a woman walking alone in an unknown area at night, cover up and keep moving as quickly as you can. A friend of mine was nearly raped by a gas station attendant after stopping for gas while on a business trip. Her crime? Running out of gas in an unknown, isolated part of town, after dark. Very fortunately for her, a good Samaritan happened by and warded off the would-be rapist. The world is a very dangerous place. This braindead bourgeois mentality that "I can walk wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want" is puerile and doubtless encourages many young women to engage in reckless behavior that needlessly endangers themselves.

"A majority of cases of rape and molestation are done to those who were not in dangerous situations, they were done in "normal" circumstances.  To assume that the majority of rapes occured because there was already a situation of risk involved is naive and insulting."

I assumed no such thing. I'm simply pointing out that the world is a dangerous place. In the US, the last thing we need is less taking of responsibility for oneself.

You (women) need to take responsibility for your own safety, particularly in this American culture where you're expected not to ask your father or husband to share in the costs of providing for you and protecting you. And, yes, that includes character assessment of the men you are around and the situations you place yourself in. How you dress is, of course, your choice, but if you are dressed provocatively, this reduces the number of places you can safely go.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 1:00 PM

"A majority of cases of rape and molestation are done to those who were not in dangerous situations"

You don't see the contradiction in your own statement?? Apparently, the situation wasn't so "normal" after all and was a good deal more dangerous than the victim had supposed.

And (contra this tribal porn "study" you refer to) economist Steven Landsburg has written on research showing that pornography actually reduces rape, not the other way around.

But if you're going to do a study, I think the most interesting would be a study that looks at the whole sex industry - pornography, strip clubs and prostitution. Pornography and strip clubs can be said to merely whet the appetite, not quench it, so perhaps in combination with a severely enforced prohibition of prostitution, you have a recipe for disaster.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 98
Points 1,895

Administrators let offenders at one of Iowa's most dangerous prison units watch violent and sexually explicit movies and TV shows for years, despite repeated complaints from a female officer who said it encouraged inmates to sexually harass her. [...]

Despite correctional officer Kristine Sink's complaints, administrators told her not to turn off the movies or shows. When she did, they accused her of insubordination, according to department records that Sink provided to The Associated Press. One warden blamed Sink for causing problems by complaining, and another supervisor suggested her outfits — a standard-issue uniform — were enticing inmates.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 4:46 PM
So is being a slattern or trollop. We dont want them to be libertarians.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 4:58 PM

First, I really had to listen to the video carefully be the girl was very attractive EXCEPT FOR THE BLUE TOUNG that keep drawing my attention away from the slut talk.

That having been said, she is NOT a libertarian.  Libertarians are not concerned with sluts or slut shaming or having to look at hot manufactured women in very little clothing on the covers of magazines that talk about them having sex.  Besides, I go for the articles and never even notice the women.  Libertarians are concerned with two things one of which Tom Woods pointed out: 1. Non-Aggression and 2. Private Property Rights.  The gal does bring up on violation of both of these but in an un-libertarian context. 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Mon, Jan 7 2013 8:22 PM

Implying Libertarians can't have opinions outside of NAP and PPR's?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

Anton Chevov on the sexes (from A Reluctant Tragic Hero, where the male hero talks about his female problems):

Well now, tell me why am I alive? What's the purpose of this uninterrupted series of mental and physical sufferings? I understand being a martyr to an idea, yes! But to be a martyr to the devil knows what, skirts and lamp-globes, no! I humbly decline! No, no, no! I've had enough! Enough!

Ha,so true! if there is any sort of bat-shit craziness and banality on the woman's side of the fence (and tragically, this seems to be the case), it's they are mimicking the men on this type of muddle-headed nonsense more often than they should.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Tue, Jan 8 2013 2:05 AM

Libertarians are concerned with two things one of which Tom Woods pointed out: 1. Non-Aggression and 2. Private Property Rights.

Which is what her latest video said.

Libertarians are not concerned with sluts or slut shaming or having to look at hot manufactured women in very little clothing on the covers of magazines that talk about them having sex.

Implying her critics are not libertarian because they are concerned about (bogus) "slut shaming".

Besides, I go for the articles and never even notice the women.

Me too, same for underwear catalogues.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 653
Points 13,185

Clayton:
You (women) need to take responsibility for your own safety, particularly in this American culture where you're expected not to ask your father or husband to share in the costs of providing for you and protecting you. And, yes, that includes character assessment of the men you are around and the situations you place yourself in. How you dress is, of course, your choice, but if you are dressed provocatively, this reduces the number of places you can safely go.

I just don't understand this mentality.  If Bert were to point out how the war on drugs normalizes agression in the inner-city by making dispute resolution over drug money and property illegal, you would recognize this as an insightful analysis.  You probably wouldn't feel compelled to say "yeah, but you shouldn't be walking around North Avenue at night."  I mean, its obvious that such an analysis doesn't equal a "braindead bourgeois mentality that I can walk wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want."

Yet, if Bert or any other libertarian feminist points out how slut shaming normalizes and perpetuates rape culture, the common response seems to be along these lines; "dont wanna get raped?  Dress like an Amish bag lady and stay in the kitchen." (I exagerate, of course, but the idea is the same). 

they said we would have an unfair fun advantage

"enough about human rights. what about whale rights?" -moondog
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 98
Points 1,895
Primetime replied on Tue, Jan 8 2013 10:45 AM

mikachusetts:

I just don't understand this mentality.  If Bert were to point out how the war on drugs normalizes agression in the inner-city by making dispute resolution over drug money and property illegal, you would recognize this as an insightful analysis.  You probably wouldn't feel compelled to say "yeah, but you shouldn't be walking around North Avenue at night."  I mean, its obvious that such an analysis doesn't equal a "braindead bourgeois mentality that I can walk wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want."

Yet, if Bert or any other libertarian feminist points out how slut shaming normalizes and perpetuates rape culture, the common response seems to be along these lines; "dont wanna get raped?  Dress like an Amish bag lady and stay in the kitchen." (I exagerate, of course, but the idea is the same).

That's how I saw it.  The poster above is accurate.  It makes no difference if you are statistically safer from being aggressed upon in one area versus another, or you decrease your odds of being violated by abiding by a certain dress code.  The whole point is that by alleging "she shouldn't have been wearing that" the victim is being saddled with blame, when they did absolutely nothing wrong.

The poster says nothing about how "wise" it is to walk around flashing your boobs or your Rolex in a dodgy area.  Nor does it "claim that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime".  It says to suggest that victims should prevent crimes by maintaining a certain dress code, inherently says that men are not in control of their own actions, and are essentially Pavlov's dog.  Jargon does make a good point that some men are dogs, but that still doesn't follow that somehow it is the victim's fault when she becomes victimized, and that the solution to such problems is that she should follow a certain code of conduct at all times, so as not to be aggressed upon.

If we lived in a town where you couldn't go outside your house without being attacked, and someone said "it's ridiculous that someone should be expected to simply never go outside if they don't want to get attacked"...it seems like the response from people here would be: "How idiotic.  You want to claim that going outside doesn't affect the likelihood of you getting attacked?  It's simple, if you don't want to be assaulted, stay inside.  It's perfectly logical.  You're braindead if you think there's something wrong with that."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jan 8 2013 10:49 AM

Wow. This is some impressive straw manning of what Clayton actually said. Keep it up.

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 3 (91 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS