The first article was by Eve Livingston writing in the Guardian: “The state is an enabler of sexual violence. So what hope for the victims?”
The headline caught my interest, which lasted well into the third paragraph. She wrote,
Violence does not exist solely in the instant that blow meets body, but in the circumstances that facilitate it and the systems which excuse it.
My heart soared. Could it be that Ayn Rand’s argument that all state laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint had penetrated the pages of the Guardian? For it is certainly true that the state facilitates and excuses its own violence, and I have long thought that this produces a climate of opinion that tends to facilitate and excuse violent acts by anyone.
‘Fraid not. It was just another rehash of the tired old trick of redefining “violence” to mean “anything I don’t like”. Ms Livingston thinks that the government spending less money than she thinks it should on women’s refuges is “violence”. As is the government spending less on anything, or talking in metaphors that might induce unpleasant thoughts.
If economic policy too accurately embodies its violent language of slashing and cutting,
Whatevs, thought I. And nearly missed a rather good point:
…legislation around crime and justice delivers an almost laughable irony. In some cases, the very laws purportedly designed to protect women from violence can, in practice, enable it: the criminalisation of various activities relating to the sale of sex, for example, is universally opposed by sex worker-organising collectives, on the grounds that it limits their ability to work safely – for instance, in groups or designated zones – and without fear of violence from both clients and state agencies.
I was surprised and glad to read this. Until now almost the only voice in the Guardian opposing the fashionable “Nordic model” put forward by an unholy alliance between old style authoritarian conservatives such as Caroline Spelman MP and Gavin Shuker MP (one of whom does and one does not have the abbreviation for “Conservative” written after their name, not that it matters) and new style authoritarian feminists such as Guardian regulars Joan Smith and Catherine Bennett, came from Melissa Gira Grant. Ably though the latter writes, she tends to be discounted because she would actually know. Dear me, we can’t have that.
I really was glad to see that Eve Livingston sees that laws that claim to protect women from violence can have the opposite effect. It is sad that she almost hid her message from me (and not only me judging from the comments) by that silly attempt to stick the label “violence” on something that, even if one believes it to be bad, is not violence. Ironically that same trick is played by the crusading politicians she rightly opposes. Click on the link relating to Gavin Shuker MP above to read the following (emphasis added):
The year-long parliamentary enquiry argues that prostitution should be seen as violence against women and an affront to sexual equality, but sex workers have reacted furiously to the proposals arguing that the criminalisation of clients will push sex work underground, further stigmatise women and put lives at risk.
The second article that surprised me is from the New Statesman. Sarah Ditum writes, “What’s missing from the transgender debate? Any discussion of male violence.”
One of those things that supposedly never happens, happened. Luke Mallaband was convicted of six voyeurism offences after a female student at the University of East Anglia found his phone hidden in the university library’s gender-neutral toilets. The probation report described him as “high risk of posing serious harm to females”.
Here I was simply and honestly surprised that a piece in the New Statesman admitted there was a potential problem at all. I had thought that the whole “transgender bathroom rights” issue was still so new and shiny, like a newly socialist country whose economy has not yet visibly gone to pot, that no one on the Left dared break ranks. But Sarah Ditum did dare, and despite the many poor arguments elsewhere in her article, she saw where Eve Livingston did not the danger in the attempt to use the emotions stirred up by a word as a substitute for argument:
“Inclusion” and “equality” are words with strong positive connotations, and those positive connotations can sometimes smother the problem of competing rights in a warm feel-good fuzz. On 1 December, Parliament debates the report of the Women and Equalities Committee into transgender equality: from reading it, you would have very little idea that the rights of women and the rights claimed by trans people have any points of conflict.
It is not that I have any particular opinion on whether gender neutral public toilets are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing in general. Of course they should be allowed, and of course gender segregated public toilets should be allowed. Libertarianism offers a way out of the contradictions about the “competing rights” of this or that group: respect the right of whoever provides the toilets in a premises to enforce what rules they think best and the right of potential users of the toilets to use those ones or go elsewhere as they think best.
“Libertarianism offers a way out of the contradictions about the “competing rights” of this or that group: respect the right of whoever provides the toilets in a premises to enforce what rules they think best and the right of potential users of the toilets to use those ones or go elsewhere as they think best.”
Exactly. By wrapping it up in emotional language, they’ve obscured the fact that they’re claiming a “right” that exists for nobody: to use someone else’s property as they please. I’m amazed that this counter-argument isn’t put more often. The conservative “right” is its own worst enemy sometimes. And the Left know it. They know that their most vocal opponents will tie themselves up in knots over these awful weirdos using the wrong toilets, threatening Our Kids, and completely miss the point. Again.
Problem with the focus on ownership is that we are dealing with a world where ‘public’ property is common (because the state is large) and where there are access requirements imposed on providers of services. And this is the sphere where those who are disappearning down the identity politics rabbithole (I’ve got two rabbits of different colours – perhaps I should find out which colour has historically had worse outcomes and discriminate in its favour? Although as rabbits are simpler than humans, the other one will probably just fight for its share…) focus – they seek to spread their agenda by control of the things that everyone pays for, and then roll out their control to private property. So the focus on individual property rights, although important, is away from the locus of the fight.
And this is why the prostiution debate is important to those of a liberal (properly meant) bent. Because this is an area where state imposition does clear harm, but an alliance of the extremists is ignoring both evidence and humanity to promote their own agenda. It also gives the room for the sort of alliance that Perry sometimes advocates, with those feminists who interpret that creed as meaning a woman controls her own body, with those who value evidence for policy (sorry – that’s not always libertarians – see gun control…), with the true liberals of other creeds. Letting others dictate what someone can do with their own most intergral property in public spaces seems to be a key battle to fight and win.
It should be noted though that I have yet to see a gender neutral toilet at a UK university (other than those open to all genders, because its a small building…). I don’t think the identity idiots have the power or influence they used to have in the UK any more.
so basically, two examples of anti male blood libel.
Watchman’s comment about “public property” is accurate, but his comment about “access requirements imposed on providers of services” is not. Rather, that is precisely the area in which a focus on “ownership” (of the toilets or any other facility) provides a clear and simple means of resolving conflicts. A simple respect for private property would resolve issues such as the use of toilet facilities, smoking in restaurants/bars, concealed weapons carry, baking cakes for homosexuals, etc.
Why are those most keen on safe spaces the same people who are most eager to deny women their most well known and oldest safe space: the bathroom?
If a man (claiming to have transited) had irreversible surgery to reduce his height and upper body strength to that of the corresponding female percentile, I’d be bound to grant (a) his sincerity, and (b) his having removed at least one argument that he compromises said safe space. Absent this, colour me sceptical.
“the criminalisation of burglary, for example, is universally opposed by burglar-organising collectives, on the grounds that it limits their ability to work safely – for instance, in groups or designated zones – and without fear of violence from both clients and state agencies.”
Acts are made crimes to stop them, not to make them easier to do.
“Acts are made crimes to stop them, not to make them easier to do.”
Why is a non violent, consensual act between adults a crime?
“Why is a non violent, consensual act between adults a crime?”
Because they haven’t figured out a workable mechanism for taxing the event yet.
“Because they haven’t figured out a workable mechanism for taxing the event yet.”
That and certain people find it yucky. I find other things yucky. Can my tastes be legislated for please?
bobby b, December 16, 2016 at 1:15 am: “Because they haven’t figured out a workable mechanism for taxing the event yet.”
The Roman empire taxed prostitution. The collatio lustralis was levied on them, as on other trades, and this continued for some time even after Constantine. In 428, a praetorian prefect ordered that bishops must assist and free any girls who appealed to them to escape from brothel life, and provided money (from his own fortune, apparently) to compensate Constantinople for the loss of tax revenue. This I think was the first (semi-)state action against prostitution. A century later (529), empress Theodora (who, if the tales be true, came from exactly that kind of environment when young) verified that prostitute slave girls cost on average 5 solidi and then forced the sale of all in Constantinople to her at that price, arranging their training in virtuous trades in an institution she founded. (Procopius, who hated her, and eagerly recounted the most salacious tales of how Theodora herself earned her keep when young, asserts the girls found their new virtuous lives so boring that some took drastic measures of escape. He is, however, at least as prejudiced against Theodora as the NYT is against Trump, so who knows.)
In the USA, I believe gambling is or was illegal in various states in the sense that one might be arrested. In the UK, I believe it was never illegal in that sense, but the old phrase “debt of honour” signifies precisely that the law (mostly) refuses to enforce gambling debts; they were, and still today often are, a private matter, since the laws of contract specifically exclude them from what the state will defend. IIUC, this doesn’t prevent anyone in the UK from gambling, or from running a gambling den, but they must rely on social pressure, or other arrangements, to ensure payment. (The term ‘welsher’ has doubtless vanished from polite society these days – what a target it would be for the hate speech laws. 🙂 It meant ‘a bookie who did not pay out on his bets’, and its ethnic original signified how those from outside a social group might not be sufficiently subject to such social pressures.)
I believe this distinction can also be found in the various laws that have existed (or, in a sense, not existed) about prostitution. It may be worth bearing in mind in any ‘libertarian-analysis’ discussion. When and whether “public force” shall be invokable by private actors to enforce a private consensual contract is distinguishable from whether private actors shall be subjected to public force to stop them making and fulfilling a private consensual contract.
Natalie – again many thanks for reading the insane (utterly irrational – illogical) ravings of the Guardian newspaper – so that other people (such as me) do not have to. The Guardian is down to selling 159 thousand copies a day (not enough for a national newspaper to survive) – so it is likely to close in 2017.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you.
It is not that I have any particular opinion on whether gender neutral public toilets are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing in general
I do have a particular opinion. Assuming as I do, that folk of both (or all) sexes prefer a little cubicle when they are attempting a sit down operation (and assuming a similar preference for passers by) ; and assuming that the sex with hosepipe fittings is happy to do number ones standing up against the wall – it follows that you can provide more evacuation opportunities in a given space, and at a given cost, if you provide stand ups as well as cubicles. You will also speed up the average visit and reduce queueing time by providing stand ups. Note that having men queue up to do number ones in cubicles doesn’t just waste men’s time, it wastes women’s time too as they have to wait in the same queue.
Having demonstrated that you should provide a judicious mix of stand ups and cubicles, we come on to the question – do you need to have them in separate rooms ? This comes down to whether the standers dislike being watched by passers by and whether passers by wish to avoid the view. Even some men are nervous about having someone next to them looking and perhaps arriving at cruel and hurtful conclusions about the size of the equipment on display in the next urinal. This nervousness can cause a temporary blockage in the flow, reducing efficient use of the facilities. It’s very hard to imagine that adding unhosepiped passers by will reduce the supply of nervousness, and hence delays at the urinals.
So it’s pretty clear that you want the urinals separate. If you insist for political reasons that there must be a single entry point for all sexes, the best solution is to have a centre wall, with urinals on one side of the wall and cubicles on the other. (You won’t want to divide the space 50-50 of course, so the centre wall won’t actually be in the centre.) This, strictly, should also be more efficient than having a separate mens’ room with its own cubicles, as a unisex cubicle space allows for maximum cubicle utilisation.
Obviously I am ignoring some of the key features of sex specific toilets – reapplication of faces by people who’d prefer to keep those secrets secret from members of the opposite sex, and gossip. Not sure how to model that mathematically.
Sometimes, when discussing issues such as gender differences and bathroom use, it is important to consider the worst-case scenario that your debate opponent has in mind.
Think of a soccer game, full of rowdy, maybe drunken, fans. Also think of another fan – an effeminate man, dressed as a woman, self-identifying as a woman.
Now imagine that man needing to use a restroom.
If he walks into the typical aggression-packed stadium bathroom with a thirty-foot urinal and a few stalls, he might escape with his life. He certainly won’t escape with his dignity.
Remember that your opponent believes, as first principles, that that man has every right to dress as he does, that he should not be excluded from society for doing so, and that a proper duty of government is to protect those unable to protect themselves.
We can argue forever about our libertarian principles and how they would produce the most efficient solution for this problem, but we won’t ever convince anyone else that we’re correct if we can’t address our opponents’ beliefs and assuage their concerns about admittedly vulnerable people in society.
I think that we CAN do this. We just seldom if ever do.
“This I think was the first (semi-)state action against prostitution.”
Actually, that could more accurately be called a “(semi-) state action against slavery”.
The main reason to make prostitution illegal is to bolster marriage, for reasons of religion or sexual politics. The religious reasons should be fairly obvious (though I’m not sure I agree with that conclusion, even though I agree that monogamous marriage is best for society as a whole), but the sexual politics reasons are largely denied – prostitution weakens the power of “virtuous” women by lowering the value of sex. “Why buy the cow at the cost of lifetime of servitude when a lifetime supply of milk costs so much less?”
” . . . prostitution weakens the power of “virtuous” women by lowering the value of sex.”
Then, by the same logic, and to avoid sexism, we ought to outlaw home handymen and auto mechanics.
Of course, bobby. That’s why you need a licensed electrician to change your light bulb.
.
[Yes, (minor) hyperbole — but in many areas you’re not supposed to do the simplest repairs to the wiring or other DIY projects, lest you
deny a licensed electrician, plumber, carpenter, bricklayer, etc. etc. etc. the opportunity to grab a buck & support his unionblow up the neighborhood.]Hm. I suppose sanitation engineers, too. Does that mean I don’t have to vacuum anymore?
My wife used to accuse me of “yelling” at her whenever we had any disagreement. I finally figured it out. Her family never argued about anything. They were Methodists, and expressed disapproval by passive-aggressive silence toward the family member who disagreed with them. My Irish/Slovak family couldn’t get through breakfast without loud voices claiming injustice over the bacon distribution.
This took years for me to discern, as for the first decade of my marriage I interpreted her silence when I made decisions as a mark of agreement. And for the next ten, I knew she was angry and just let her stew silently. She finally gave up after twenty years and started telling me what I had done wrong. Having a two decade backlog, she’s still catching up.
Julie, my ex used to tell me that if I hadn’t been able to fix her car, I’d have never gotten to first base.
“
”
But … but … then some people might not decide to do things the way I like!
I recently learned that marriage no longer exists in jurisdictions with the atrocity known as no-fault divorce. Marriage has throughout most of Western history been a contract whereby both parties are expected to generally uphold their side of the agreement (and, yes, sex was always part of the agreement).
No-fault divorce is the legal dissolution of the marital contract because one party decides the lifetime contract does not suit him/her any longer. Kind of like I buy a car that I receive today and agree to pay 3k/month for the next 24 months but after, well, 6 months decide the contract does not suit me any longer so I’ll stop making the monthly payments. My analogy is valid whether or not I return the car – and in both cases ought to be grossly unethical according to libertarian standards and is, I assure you, a sign, cause, and effect of social disorder.
And please note I’m not defending marriage per se; I’m defending the integrity of contracts.
Want to get married? Go for it. But if your contract permits “no fault divorce” please out of human decency call it something honest instead of marriage; perhaps consider calling it “cohabitation test-run #3” with adjustment to # as appropriate.
http://www.thelocal.it/20161215/married-italians-might-no-longer-have-to-promise-to-be-faithful
just saw dat
Accounting for the expenditures? Violent. Seizing the loot for the expenditures? Sharing!
bobby, 😉
On further reading there are some points of interest in the Guardian article – but other comments have dealt with them.