Worth it if you have the time, a different angle on the state that most libertarians (including me) have probably never considered before. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LkYDpQQVJ0[/youtube]
Underlines the problems when we try and legislate righteousness. When man became an economic unit and the family structure was fragmented, creating woman as economic unit was inevitable. Hence in the destruction of the family came a great call for the state - "they/them" - to take over the family role: Feed the children, protect the mother, succour the father. The further and further one pushes that paradigm the further one finds the flaws in any legislation, and the unreasonable demands from the population for "they/them" to take care of the, now fictional, family unit. That said, the rise of feminist thought and its influence on women in breaking out of the domestic slave model has awakened interest in the male:female dichotomy and how to allow both sides of the equation to actually reach their potentials. Thanks for the clip - as you said, interesting take. I think she fails to address the issue of 'slave becoming master' and the natural swing to worst excesses being repeated when an old order is overthrown. It's a pity this revolution that has happened over the last 50 years hasn't reached more than the Western World (but I assume those parts of the world would argue for the continuing patriarchal family unit and the subjugation of women within it, rather than an equal partnership such as has been fought for in the West. To add a little levity to this, I always think of the Monty Python take on the 'Stockholm Syndrome', that I believe still influences the greater part of womanhood. Considering the hold that patriarchal religion has had on the world for the last 2000 years it's not surprising that 50 years of feminist thought is still ready to burn a few men at the stake. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI7p2p1QJI[/youtube]
I've been exploring these ideas a lot lately and still haven't come to solid conclusions on them. But, it's interesting. Obviously equality is a good thing, the question is, is that what we got or did the pendulum swing too far? And what does equality between the sexes mean anyway? We are obviously physically different, does that mean equality is what is wanted or needed or does it need to be more subtle than that to take into account genetic differences? These are all really interesting questions to me. Especially, in my own personal history where my mother was very much the person in charge in the family and she was actually a bit of a tyrant and used many of the prevailing societal notions of the patriarchy to project a sort of guilt upon the other members of the family to get her own way. There is a lot of guilt being projected onto the male population I think even though most of us never benefited from any patriarchy type situation. And personally I would never want to. Almost like sins of the fathers, if you know what I mean. Is it a reason why many women aren't involved in libertarianism these days? Maybe. I've never really been involved personally with the legal system, so couldn't say whether women get a fairer hearing than men in general though I know there's a lot of men complaining that they do. The thing of women and children first is obviously traditional. In another video she points out how men historically were mostly expendable, while if you wanted to have a successful society, basically every woman counts. Because of the resources in bringing a baby to birth. Each baby requires a different mother, but in theory only a small amount of men (or even only one) are really required. And that's why you had a few men at the top who benefited hugely throughout history, and most were at the bottom as peasants or slaves. The women were mostly somewhere in the middle. But also because of the huge resources each woman had, their uteruses basically, they were more heavily protected and as a result, more of their freedoms were suppressed. Which incidentally, is analogous to a lot of what's happening today. Suppress freedoms to provide security. At the end of the day there's a lot of bad traditions, that were somewhat logical in pre-industrial times, that I think need to be purged.
It is an interesting idea. Two initial comments. First, to me equality is equality of opportunity free from coercion. Hence, no coercive or unnecessary prejudice preventing anyone choosing what they wish to do, but if a particular gender, genome or other grouping of people are naturally repulsed and attracted to different things in life then let it happen and don't try to force equality through policies like minimum boardroom gender ratios (plans are currently in place to have enforceable minimum standard in large businesses starting in 2017 BTW). Second, as mentioned above, survival and propagation of the tribe is so completely natural it's not funny. It's effectively hard-wired into our genome (particularly through the effects of the sex genes) and hence there will be for many generations to come, a natural bias in male-female roles and preferences particularly when it comes to protecting women from harm. This is the basis for cultural biases and memes (eg. women and children first ideas). This does not mean that many of the traditions are worth keeping, but it is worth recognising that the traditions have a biological induced core that cannot be thrown away at the same time. Mothers are the natural majority decision makers when it comes to guardianship of their natural children (ie. they naturally have >51% of the say compared to the father). Although this does not apply to adopted children the >51% instinct is presumably still present in many situations. JulieW - I like your comment on the fragmentation of the family unit and the role of the state.
I agree wit this. What do you mean by the mother naturally having more than 51% say? Is that not just a result of historical roles where the men did the work and the women stayed at home? This is what's interesting to me about the equality question because obviously a man is still physically capable right throughout the pregnancy. A woman does not retain the same physical capabilities. If you are talking about knowledge jobs, in a modern information economy this isn't so much of an issue but there are still a lot of physical jobs around. I can see where the call for the government to legislate things like maternity leave comes from even though I don't agree with government force. Does not forcing these things give women equal opportunity or does it put them below men when it comes to opportunity? Do women feel like they need the state to have an equal chance? I'm not sure this gets addressed in the libertarian community. I've often thought it a bit disconcerting that the libertarian community is mostly white males. I know we have the above, and the Wendy McElroys, etc but I think there needs to be more. At the end of the day men and women have different experiences in life and can find it hard to relate to each other. Both perspectives are needed.
Basically it's a principle that I have based on my thoughts about the natural guardianship rights of a baby. Essentially, the physical location of pregnancy and the nursing requirements are fully borne by the mother which - to me - results in a fundamentally different initial bond between mother and child compared to father and child. Let's face it a dad's contribution is physically minimal (and indeed almost superfluous). Consequently, if you had to say who in society has a natural "ownership" (a stronger word than guardianship) rights over a baby out of any person on the planet it must fundamentally be the mother. Let's face it, a mother's body goes through hell and she is physically risking her life whereas the father can just drink beer and do nothing after his ten seconds of early involvement. If that doesn't give preferential rights to the mother then what does? In the interests of the family unit a father (or even grandparents, siblings etc) can contribute significantly economically towards the pregnancy and the baby. This is where their guardianship claims come into play. The validity of different claims can obviously differ under different circumstances, but without any special information the order of claim should be Mother first, Father Second, Grandparents Third, Other Family Fourth, Rest of Local Society Fifth, Anyone Else Sixth. Hence, if we take the case of adoption. A father can express strong preferences regarding a willingness to give up their guardianship rights and adopt out a baby but first and foremost the decision should be that of the mother. If she wants to keep a baby but the father doesn't then it is her choice not his. If a Mother specifically chooses to transfer guardianship rights to a specific foster family then that should hold (the father can of course put his claim to the new family). If the Mother doesn't specifically transfer rights then her guardianship rights become "unowned" and the next best claim is that of the Father. If they also give up their rights, then it passes to the next best claim and so on until either someone is willing the have the guardianship rights (and the associated responsibilities) or the baby is effectively abandoned on the hillside to the gods. No-one should be forced to have the guardianship rights (and responsibilities) and luckily we are largely in a world where there is a deficit of babies rather than a surplus. Note that this principle does not mean that there won't be disputes - particularly since the order of valid claims can change as the child grows up - but it does reduce the range of areas when there can be a valid dispute that requires arbitration. It should also reduce the incentive to mis-use the legal system by viciously libelling partners. This is the first time that I've tried to put this in writing so hopefully it makes sense. Edit: Small addition near the beginning.
As an aside, applying this principle to abortion (but noting that the babies right to life also exists) leads to some interesting but (what I consider) eminently sensible implications about the situations when abortion should and should not be tolerated.
So lifestyle choices on the development of the pill and abortions have nothing to do with it? Give certain type of women the choice to kill their own babies, and they will behave just like nazies and bankers. The number of babies aborted during a woman's lifetime through simply taking the pill (in the earliest of stages) is one of the most closely guarded secrets of the feminist age.
