brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/21/85)
There has been recent talk in net.women along the lines of, "What is all this Libertarian crud doing in this group." It seems that people are suggesting that liberty and feminism are antithetical. I think exactly the reverse is true. (BTW, I am not a member of the Libertarian party, nor do I think their current platform can be implemented. I do subscribe to the ideal of individual liberty, though.) The central concept behind the libertarian ideal is the elmination of physical force from the commerce of the human race. This means let people go about their business free of force from others, and that includes force from neighbours, corporations and governments. Now, to my mind the origin of sexism lies in the fact that women are, as a rule, of smaller stature and lesser strength than men. This has caused the domination of women by men. It is true that other affects have appeared later, but the root of it all is the physical difference. So what better ideal than one that advocates the elimination of physical strength as a tool to get one's desires? The ideal of liberty says the mind counts, not the body, for the mind is what is uniquely human. It says that people shouldn't be able to force you to do things because of their superior strength OR their superior numbers. In a world where only the mind counts, sexism and racism can't last. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/22/85)
> It seems that people are suggesting that liberty and feminism are > antithetical. I think exactly the reverse is true. > > The central concept behind the libertarian ideal is the elmination > of physical force from the commerce of the human race. This means > let people go about their business free of force from others, and that > includes force from neighbours, corporations and governments. Yes, but if the inequalities do exist anyway (such as the physical differences between men and women), how do you make sure that people do not use force to take advantage of these inequalities? Basically the question is, in a world of inequalities, how do you enforce the elimination of force? It's a catch 22 type of situation. No matter what you do, you will only get approximate solutions and there will always be victims because humans are vulnerable because of their bodies. > Now, to my mind the origin of sexism lies in the fact that women are, > as a rule, of smaller stature and lesser strength than men. > This has caused the domination of women by men. It is true that other > affects have appeared later, but the root of it all is the physical > difference. There are other theories on the origin of sexism, some of which are based not on strength but on differences in reproductive capabilities. Granted, this is a physiological difference anyway. > So what better ideal than one that advocates the elimination of > physical strength as a tool to get one's desires? The ideal of liberty > says the mind counts, not the body, for the mind is what is uniquely human. > It says that people shouldn't be able to force you to do things because > of their superior strength OR their superior numbers. There are a few problems with saying that "the mind counts, not the body". The first most obvious one is that this is simply not true. People are bound by their bodies, whether they like it or not. Ask any starving person which is more important, the mind or the body. If what you are saying was true, we wouldn't have half of all the problems we have in the world because people wouldn't worry fighting over simple things like land to feed themselves. I personally think that your position is a very arrogant one. Worrying about your mind is a luxury that you are very lucky to be able to indulge in (me too), but others are not so lucky, and if you want to involve others in your philosophy you will have to start paying attention to what it is that is important for them. The second problem with your philosophy is that it is a very dangerous one, as shown by your attitude in general. If only the mind counts, then why worry about all the petty little things that concern the body... "you say you don't have enough to feed yourself? don't worry, it's your mind that counts, Yes, you're starving, but you're free, just count yourself lucky!" uh-huh... I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. > In a world where only the mind counts, sexism and racism can't last. > -- Welcome to the real world, Brad. Like it or not, we have bodies and we're going to have them for a long time, unless the boys continue playing with their toys of course, in which case we won't have sexism nor racism and we'll all be free to be dead. So, let's figure out an approximate solution to this business of discrimination, shall we? > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (07/23/85)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says, plausibly enough, that: > It seems that people are suggesting that liberty and feminism are > antithetical. I think exactly the reverse is true. He then identifies liberty as something akin to the ideals of the Libertarian Party, although he is not a member of that group. (Brad works in Ontario. Is there a Libertarian Party in Canada?) The sort of "liberty" in which he believes is: > the elmination > of physical force from the commerce of the human race. This means > let people go about their business free of force from others, and that > includes force from neighbours, corporations and governments." Even if we could magically make physical coercion impossible, there would be no way to prevent the continuation of economic subjugation of one class by another. I think that what the libertarians really want is the "liberty" to use their economic power without interference. The key argument to Brad's claim that libertarians and feminists are allies is this: > Now, to my mind the origin of sexism lies in the fact that women are, > as a rule, of smaller stature and lesser strength than men. > This has caused the domination of women by men. If I may be blunt, this is typical libertarian ignorance. There is no way to substantiate the claim that women are naturally weaker than men because for a very long time it has been customary to keep girls and women less nourished than boys and men. I am not just speaking of less developed countries. My grandmother tells me that when she was a child only her father got eggs for breakfast and that the boys were fed more at dinner. If you tell me that this was because the men had to "go out and earn the money" you are arguing circularly. Furthermore, archaeo- logical evidence shows that prehistoric hunters and warriors often were women. (Their skeletons had been assumed to be the bones of males just because they were buried with weapons.) To answer Brad's rhetoric: > So what better ideal than one that advocates the elimination of > physical strength as a tool to get one's desires? How about an ideal which forbids the use of *any* force, physical or economic, to suppress the individuals' use of their talents? > In a world where only the mind counts, sexism and racism can't last. True, but where money talks, the poor are mute. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
mjv@ihu1e.UUCP (Vlach) (07/25/85)
> Now, to my mind the origin of sexism lies in the fact that women are, > as a rule, of smaller stature and lesser strength than men. > This has caused the domination of women by men. It is true that other > affects have appeared later, but the root of it all is the physical > difference. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Brad, why don't you study women's history instead of making up your own theories like this? The origin of sexism is quite a long tale, but has very little if anything to do with the fact that women are smaller than men. Some women's studies courses might be very valueable to you. I'll give you a hint -- it has to do with no birth control and constant child bearing. Plus the industrial revolution and the ensuing division of labor, and many other things along the path... Marcia Bear