Feminist Misrepresentation in Libertarianism

Miscellaneous General
21

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?

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

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.

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”.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

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.

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?

25

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!

26

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.

27

“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.

28

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

“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

29

@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 -

30

@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 -

31

“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 -

32

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.

33

So is being a slattern or trollop. We dont want them to be libertarians.

34

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.

35

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

36

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.

37

Which is what her latest video said.

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

Me too, same for underwear catalogues.

38

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).

39

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.”

40

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