"the region cannot be addressed, nor modern democracies constructed, as long as these issues are pushed under the carpet by regimes, the UN or conservative thugs"
Wow that covers just about everyone but you Daniel!
I do take issue with you refering to Conservative thugs. Check a few facts and you will find far more people were killed last century by activists (Thats a thug when they are left wing) than by right wing thugs.

[Deleted for abuse.]

JBowyer and Arjay: are you really so blinkered that you ignore the fact that this splendid article is about WOMEN? The treatment of women in these countries is appalling! Or do you overlook that in your quest to continue the millennia-old Muslim-Jewish battle?

Rise up all you women of the Middle East! Demand your rights. We women of the West will support you even if the likes of JBowyer and Arjay never lift a finger to help.

Arjay. You let yourself down with this sort of rant which seems to me to have no relation to the article which is about the plight of women in many/most/nearly all/all Muslim states. The facts as listed cannot be denied. Those countries are clearly sexist to an appalling degree.
Because he cannot answer the criticisms/comments in the article, Arjay does not even refer to them. Instead he churns out a list of issues that are totally irrelevant. In the process he automatically demonstrates that he is unconcerned with the position of women in those countries and so proves that he is totally sexist.
I have just realised that I have automatically assumed that Arjay is male. Reasonable I think because it would be a weird female who would support their own oppression, though I do know that there are a small number of women who do betray their own sex and claim that Islam is not sexist.
My personal gripe over the issue of the plight of women in Muslim countries is in respect of the feeble and selfish attitude of women in this country and others who call themselves 'feminists' and are so busy with the glass ceiling that they do nothing for and say very little about women who are really in terrible trouble elsewhere.

Western feminism by and large does not give a stuff about women suffering under godless regimes. They are to pre occupied with the right to abort their babies, take on male jobs and spend millions on academic studies to confirm their 'victim'status.

JBowyer:

I think the "conservative thugs" referred to were Islamist conservatives, not Western-style conservatives.

Bravo eyejaw! Feminists here are indeed too preoccupied with tying up the loose ends of the 1970s' feminist movement rather than dealing with the terrible plight of women in other countries, many of which are Muslim but by no means all.

Eyejaw
The term sexist has lost its sting since feminists in the western world have demonstrated that women are just as sexist as men, just as ready to use a double standard, just as desirous of power for its own sake, and willing to use power to obtain unequal benefits at the expense of others. So there’s no reason why one should not be sexist, since the alternative, apparently, is to be sexist.

The underlying purpose of not being sexist is so that the sexes can be “equal”. But no-one will offer to explain how this literally meaningless expression could be possible in the first place, why it should, or how it could be, and how the use of political power to achieve it could ever result in anything but arbitrary violation of people’s peaceable freedoms. But if you can, go right ahead.

The author is hoist with his own petard in presuming the ultimate legitimacy of democracy. If it is ultimately legitimate, then if a majority of legally qualified electors in a particular jurisdiction vote for the oppression of a minority, that is fully in accordance with standard democratic practice and no different from the situation in the west, where the minority who disagree with any opinion, are forced to obey, and to pay for policies unequally biased against their interests.

But if there is some standard of human rights over and above democracy, which majoritarian rule can or does violate, then there’s no reason why majority rule should be the ultimate ethical and political standard in the first place.

The author presumes some states as more legitimate than others. But since majoritarian rule, of itself, cannot provide the criterion, how is this to be judged? I think the USA has become a rogue state, and Australia is participating in aggressive wars and rampant systematic violations of liberty at home. All the democracies operate unethical double standards which, rhetoric aside, amount to nothing more than “might is right”. What makes anyone think the more-elective dictatorships are in any ethical position to lecture the less-elective dictatorships?

Peter Hume
Spare us the nihilism please. As for women becoming sexist, well maybe some have, but not the majority. We remember the discrimination we experienced and see no point in foisting it on the other sex. And it pales into insignificance anyway alongside the gross sexism by men against women in many other countries that the author of this article so aptly described.

The common practice of demonising Arab peoples, but in this case Arab women, raises its ugly head, yet again. One should be familiar with such comment by Mr. Meyerowitz-Katz as he goes about his regular sayanim duties. The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in the March session did criticise the ‘Israeli occupation’ for ‘breaching human rights’ after having made a favourable comment about Iran.
It is obviously this fact that motivated him to quote from UN Reports, selectively of course, as suits his purpose in life.

But did he mention for example that Israeli Jews oppose mixed relationships, particularly relationships between Jewish women and Arab men with Jews believing intermarriage is equivalent to a ‘national treason’?

The threat to any advancement by Palestinian women is as stated by the UNCSW that Israel as the occupying force was “holding back the advancement of Palestinian women”.
No level of imagination is required about the oppressed women of Palestine as their main function is to stay alive, feed their families, not to follow a career path in a country where any such opportunities have long since gone, a direct result of planned ethnic cleansing by Israel.

If, as he has stated that Iranian guards have been guilty of raping women before execution, a distasteful thought, he should also remember the cold-blooded killing of thousands of women in Sabra and Shatilla under the command of Ariel Sharon who was held personally responsible but who went on to be the Prime Minister of Israel. That’s how they reward such people.

Crimes against women, wherever they occur, whether rape or cold-blooded murder as well as limiting opportunities, are still crimes and as we all know in places like Palestine, it has been going on for 60 years.

So with such suitably chosen UN statistics, too many to mention in this reply, a discourse on the employment and equality of “Arab women”, (as if he cares one iota), be they right or wrong, with shortcomings or otherwise, make such comment in this indecently biased and selectively arranged article a familiar practice by this writer.

"....only 33.3% of Arab women 15 years and older work, compared to the global average of 55.6%..."

Of course, this is a Western definition of "work" which is undertaken outside the home. Any "house-work" is not defined as work at all - in fact, it is almost totally devalued by our society as there is no monetary remuneration attached to it.
Therefore, any woman that chooses to raise a child and attend to household duties apparently represents no economic value.

The raising of children and care and maintenance of homelife are of fundamental importance to any society.
Notwithstanding problems connected to patriarchal attitudes, Westerners shouldn't be too hasty in underestimating the pertinence and power of Middle-Eastern womanhood.

The cat is well and truly out of the bag as far as Middle-Eastern society is concerned. They are the ones who have produced a demographic where six out of ten people in the region are under 30 years-old.

The West persists in its patronization of the region. For how much longer, I wonder, will we wring out hands at the plight of women and children while we simultaneously drop bombs on their heads....for their own good.

Times are changing....

I have some sympathy with Poirot in that I do not regard a mother who stays home to bring up children as not being workers because they are. But Poirot then seems to go potty. Is she/he really saying that having six out of ten people younger than 30 is a good thing? There is no way that having a huge percentage of the population dependent (and if 6 are less than 30 then say three are of school age. That is a shocking strain. If Poirot admires fast breeding countries then I advocate Niger. There the poor blooming women have, on average well over 7 babies each. I remain unconvinced that those women have real choice in the matter. For Poirot's delectation I proffer the highest breeding countries, Poirot can decide if they are desirable places to be a woman or even more so a child:All of the following have fertility rates greater than 6 per woman: Niger, Guinea Bissau, Afghanistan, Burundi, Liberia, Congo, East Timor, Mali, Sierra Leone, Uganda,Angola, Chad, Somalia and Burkino Faso. Can Poirot please explain how it is that those countries are generally poor?
The facts all point to the idea that where women are educated and empowered they choose not to have a huge number of children. Does Poirot really think that women in those countries choose to have so many children?

eyejaw,

Did I say that I considered having 6 out of 10 people under 30 years-old was a good thing?

I merely pointed out that this was the current demographic in the region.
I was, in effect, highlighting the possible implications of such a demographic regarding shifting power structures.
And shifting they are - we have yet to see how all this pans out. Within this century it is likely that we will see a majority of Arab people populating Europe - they are the one's reproducing.

They are also the ones that have retained some basic skills and knowledge regarding human survival of the non-technological variety.

Sorry, but I haven't the time at the moment to debate the pros and cons of over-population in the developing world.
It seems to me that the West could undertake a whole lot less exploitation and do a whole lot more towards empowering these societies.
Instead most Westerners just bleat and offer up statistics....carry on as usual.

It's easy for the author to suggest that the Arab world must 'rise up' and elevate the almost non-citizen state of their women, when any women who have dared to demonstrate are brutally bashed or raped, or taken away and never seen again.

I wouldn't rely on most of the men of these countries to willingly give up the 'ownership' of their women, and their continuing belief that they have a God-given right to control all those around them.

If we add racism to the mix as well, then these countries will continue to have a long way to go before they can call themselves a true democracy, if ever.

popnperish
It is not “nihilistic” to assert the right of people, regardless of gender, to be free from harassment and arbitrary power based on political ideologies which not even their supporters are capable of making sense, even in their own terms.

Peter Hume
I was referring to your last paragraph about the US being a rogue state and Australia not much better. To not believe that democracy is better than its alternatives sounds like nihilism to me.

I don't think it's legitimate to simply assume that democracy is the best form of government or society for the reasons I have shown - democracy rests in the idea that government represents the will of people as ascertained by majority vote. It instrinsically provides no restraint against majoritarian oppression of minorities, which is the problem you yourself, correct me if I'm wrong, identify with Muslim society. Would the oppression of women be justified if a majority of electors voted on it? No. Nor are women the only minority liable to be oppressed by majority opinion. Therefore it's not my nihilism that's the problem. I'm correctly identifying problems with democracy, and with political feminism for that matter.

Peter Hume
I don't argue that democracy is perfect, just better than the alternatives. Muslim women are a lot better off in democracies like ours than they are in North African or Middle East non-democracies. They are, at least, largely protected from genital mutilation, honour killings and indiscriminate rape and murder. And they can get an education. They may face discrimination within their communities by men, but life is a lot better here for them in general.

Poirot makes no attempt to amswer my earlier question which was whether he thinks that women in fast breeding countries do that by choice. No, all we get is the statement that Arabs faster breeding rate will totally change Europe. That has nothing at all to do with the crunch issue which is the status/circumstances of women.
I note a couple of sentences from a speech by Sir David Attenborough to The Royal Society in London in March this year.
He has been talking about all the improvements humans have made over the millenia and continues:'But none of these achievements will be of any avail if we do not control our numbers. And we can do so. Wherever women have the vote, wherever they are literate, and have the medical facilities to control the number of children they bear, the birth rate drops.'
That fact has been known to people concerned with exponential population growth for many years; which is exactly why they advocate the education of women and the availability of contraceptive devices.
Poirot states as a fact that women in Muslim countries have a very high number of children. In the process he/she is inevitably agreeing with the idea that women are not empowered to decide what to do re number of children. And in part that is what the article was saying.

Why exactly are the the Far Loony Left Factions of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance so keen on bringing a Sharia Law Caliphate to the land of OZ?

That is what many Muslim immigrants want, all over the western world, wherever they settle.

And who can blame them when they get here & see how degenerate we have become over the last few decades?

While I detest Muslim fascism,Zionist fascism is far worse since it is backed by global finance and the might of the US military.

Fukushima will be devestating to Japan and perhaps the ecology of the Pacific Ocean.Just a small nuke war will see a life of misery for billions. So choose,psychopathic insanity of a few elites or a new Renaissance of enlightenment.

eyejaw,

You make a lot of assumptions....are you doing anything to aid education in third world societies?

It's a delicate balancing act to empower these women and children with education while attempting at the same time to maintain cultural identity.

I sponsor two young girls overseas - one in Africa and one in South America. They are receiving an education and their communities are receiving development support. Hopefully the empowerment of their communities together with the chance of education helps them to make the best of their cultural heritage.

Poirot this is a must see http://secretofoz.com/ 'The Wizard of Oz' by L Frank Baum had deep economic and social meaning that has been missed by history.This doco by Bill Still has won the Biff International award 2010 for best documenatary.

It will change your perception of the global finance system and how national sovereignity is the issue amongst an age of confusion and chaos.

Poirot. I am pleased to read that you support two girls, one in Africa and one in S America. You ask me what I have done to 'aid education in third world societies'. After much thought I have decided to respond to the quetion but only with reluctance because of the overtones of you show me yours etc; a sort of competition as to who is the better 'chap'.
I taught for five years in West Africa. Two of them in a boys secondary school deep in the swamps of the Niger delta (they were the cleverest classes I ever taught, partly because there was strong competition to gain entry to the school.) Then three years in an overwhelmingly Muslim area in a teacher training college for girls/women. Those women were genuinly convinced that they were inferior to men in all ways. When in a maths method lecture I used a graph from UNESCO showing what is very well known, ie that girls' intellectual development is better than boys' in the period from about 11 years to 14 years and then the males catch up. They simply did not believe me and no amount of pointing to the unimpeachable source did any good - they remained convinced that they were inferior.
I cannot agree that there is a balancing act between education for girls/women on the one hand and maintaining cultural identity on the other. To me it is a question of priority. In the context of this discussion I put education of girls/women first, anything else, no matter how desirable, second. Hence if a culture is sexist, male dominated and oppressive of women then that culture stands in the way of my top priority. By the way, I am not sure what 'assumptions' I made in an earlier post.
Arjay. We all know that you are a great anti nuker and a passionate anti Israel anti US person. I defend your right to think that even though I disagree strongly. What I cannot support, and find revolting is your apparent pleasure at the problems faced by Japan.

eyejaw,

I agree that "show and tell" and one-up-manship is a waste of time - however, it's interesting to learn of your endeavours to take education to other cultures.

Obviously, your first priority is push the agenda that men and women should be valued as equal partners in every society. While that is laudable and something Westerners take for granted, I suspect that it's not just something you can drop in on other cultures.

Every culture is the sum of it's own experience and development, and there are normally imperatives that have fashioned particular cultural values.

You say that any cultural value paradigm that incorporates a male superiority over women is one that you consider is wrong. Your idea then is that culture in that case should be debased in favour of one that delivers women of an equal status....interesting.

I'm interested in the mechanism that could be employed to achieve such ends (in a perfect world) that didn't turn "culture" into a generic one-size fits-all model for the entire world.

eyejaw,

continuing on....

It's almost impossible to isolate cultural gender values from their context within a cultural model. (despite you isolating them for the purpose of this discussion). These types of values are fundamental to any societal paradigm.

I'm not surprised that the women you taught couldn't get their heads around an alien concept - I am surprised that you expected them to do it as a matter of course.

Of course, this is one type of "teaching method"- to selectively present certain information with the intention that it will be taken on board. I'm in favour of another method which is more of a guiding hand so that the person learning gradually absorbs knowledge and values from the culture and environment of which they are a part.
Of, course, this is less likely to be successful if you are attempting to impart a cultural value from outside.

I'm wary of Western arrogance in dismissing the organic workings of non-Western societies. The West tends to barge its way in - usually at the behest of some imperial or globalised economic rational.....they do a "deal" for local resources, often despoil the environment and harm indigenous livelihoods. Then they excuse the whole process by leaving behind a school and a hospital. Never mind, that the indigenous society in question has existed very well without these offerings for millenia.

I suppose it all comes down to notions of what's "right" - which is a subjective truth.

How would you feel if someone from another culture landed on our shores and and tried to instill the tenet of male superiority into the minds of your children?

Works both ways, you know.

Eyejaw.
You wrote: "In the context of this discussion I put education of girls/women first, anything else, no matter how desirable, second. Hence if a culture is sexist, male dominated and oppressive of women then that culture stands in the way of my top priority."

I agree wholehertedly. Thank you for writing that.

eyejaw
If we need to use force - law - to treat people unequally, in order to bring about your ideal of treating women equally, surely that disproves your assumption that the sexes are equal in the first place?

I think it's literally meaningless to say that they sexes are "equal". Do you? But if not, given that they are not factually equal, what could it possibly mean?

Peter Hume

Affirmative action is the name you're looking for. It is a perfectly justifiable policy to deal with righting the wrongs of sexual inequality. Once disadvantage is overcome and there is genuine equality of opportunity, however, it needs to be abandoned.

popnperish
You haven't established that any policies are justified yet, because you haven't established that it is meaningful to say that the sexes are, or could be "equal".

What does it mean please?

Poirot

"Never mind, that the indigenous society in question has existed very well without these offerings for millenia."

On what bases do you make that assumption? The majority of these indigenous societies were not doing "very well" for millenia by our modern standards - they were living in extreme poverty with absolutely no healthcare, clean water, electricity, education or anything similar and they lived in extremely violent societies, effectively under martial law, that were constantly at war with one-another.

We can see this in a place like Somalia, where the West managed to leave its technology (guns and RPGs) to do the work of spears and shields in the ancient tribal warfare that Somalia has seen.

Which leads me to another point - culture is not something that has to be static, necessarily. Culture is fluid, it's constantly changing based on a huge amount of factors. Why is it so wrong to call for the culture of the Middle East to change in order to treat women better?

popnperish,

What you believe is right is not an absolute.
It's your idea - strongly influenced by your own psychological perspective and derived from your own culture.

How do you know that middle-eastern women don't have sense of strength and pride in their lot?
You surmise that they feel downtrodden because you judge their situation from your own reality.

Did you ever suppose that women of other cultures see themselves not as individuals entitled to individual opportunity (as we do in the West), but as a complementary half in the partnership of man and woman in the raising of children?
People of other cultures view things differently.

In any case, how do we know our Western hotch-potch of hastily evolved and cobbled together value judgments are going to stand the tests of time and change?

Peter Hume
What I mean by equal is having equal rights under the law. Obviously there are biological differences between men and women but that's not what I'm talking about.

Poirot
Are you a women? If so, your question is reasonable. If you're a man, there is a whiff of sexism about it. Whatever, I appreciate there are many Muslim women who are reasonably happy with their second class citizenship, particularly if treated well by their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. But I have read Ayaam Hirsi Ali's two books, 'Infidel' and 'Nomad' and believe her when she says there is a lot of repression and unhappiness amongst Muslim women.

popnperish,

It's interesting that the acceptability of my question with you rests on the distinction of my gender - by the way, I'm a woman.

It's not that I'm totally unsympathetic to yours and eyejaw's points, I'm just extremely wary of the deleterious impact of Western values and practice on other cultures.

NQD,

I agree that culture is not static - nor is its quiet evolution conducive to shocks such as that inflicted by colonialism or its modern equivalent, globalisation.

I make the claim that indigenous societies existed for millenia without these offerings simply on the basis that they are still here.
Man is a warring species, so let's not get precious about conflict in indigenous societies....conflict abounds no matter how "civilised" the protagonists.

Colonial man moved into other cultures for gain and now and modern globalised Western man is continuing the tradition - if there is nothing to gain, he doesn't bother. Hence, his intervention in Iraq and Libya and his total disregard for the plight of Zimbabweans.

Poirot
It all comes down to the question: What is the greater good? Respect for a culture or human (specifically women's)rights? I opt for the latter if there is a conflict.

Poirot

You did not just say "existed", you said "existed very well." Mere survival does not constitute existing "_very well_". Of course colonialism was a selfish enterprise, but it was based on a completely different system of morality from the one we hold today, it was a morality that prized nationhood above all else and did not believe in the concept of the "inherent dignity of man" or "human rights", but rather say things like rights as endowed by citizenship and statehood - you had the rights that your state provided and the more powerful your state was, the more rights you held.

It is important to remember that this did lead to the idea of human rights, as people without a state were eventually recognised to have some form of rights too. For all its flaws, colonialism led to the situation we have today, where we mostly recognise some universal rights, one of these being the right of women to be treated equally and be given equal opportunity.

Linking in to your discussion with popnperish, the flaw in your argument is that while it may be true that some women in the Middle East enjoy their status, they never had a choice in the matter and the ones that don't want to be mothers and homemakers have to just suffer.

The Western, colonial mentality that gave rise to a global culture which tries to alleviate these sorts of conditions would give them the choice - if they want to be in a partnership with their husband forming a nuclear family unit, so be it. If they instead choose to be the CEO of a bank or the president of their country, they could do that too. In Saudi Arabia at the moment, they can't even be in the driver's seat of a car. I don't see how any amount of cultural relativism and respect for indigenous practise could justify that.

popnperish
"What I mean by equal is having equal rights under the law. Obviously there are biological differences between men and women but that's not what I'm talking about."

Okay but how can people have equal rights in respect of unequal biological differences? For example should men and women have equal rights under the law to decide whether a woman has an abortion of a child for which both parents should in law be equally liable? It's meaningless.

Isn't it? How could it not be?

It would be fine if equality under the law were confined to formal equality in things where the sexes are equal, e.g. one vote, one value.

But in the nature of a society under a highly interventionist state,, equality under the law is meaningless.

For example, take a hypothetical
- mother of three children married to their father
- single mother with three children by two fathers
- man who has fathered three children whom he has never known about
- single man
- single woman.

Obviously they are not factually equal. But how could they have "equal rights under the law"?

Lactation break? Maternity leave? Obviously they would have to go. And it would be no use saying that, for example, the single mother's pension should be changed to the sole parents' pension. This would only beg the question why parents should have unequal privileges as against non-parents forced to pay for them.

The only way, that I could see, is if taxation, social security, employment, and discrimination law were abolished. I personally am all in favour of that, but is that what you had in mind?

If not, how could the sexes possibly have equal rights under law? What would be an example to do with their biological differences?

Peter Hume

You're conflating the words "equal" and "identical". It is possible to treat two different things equally, but cater to their differences. Where is the line between "equal, but different" and "unequal"? Of course, that's a hard question to answer, but I can tell you that it's not in Iranian law.

That said, many of your arguments aren't valid. For instance, while both parents should be liable for the child, only one parent will ever have the obligation to carry the child for 9 months inside of her body. That substantially alters the way the law should apply.

Similarly, there is no cause for the removal of maternity leave, but possibly an argument to introduce paternity leave (which I think does exist in some places).

NQD
I’m not conflating the words "equal" and "identical". I’m saying I don’t see how non-identical things can be "equal", and *asking* how they can be? Nothing you have said has explained the distinction.

>“It is possible to treat two different things equally, but cater to their differences.”

No-one has shown
a) why they should, or
b) how they could, or
c) how it could be done without self-contradiction, and
d) how it could be done without unethical use of aggressive force.

>“Where is the line between "equal, but different" and "unequal"? Of course, that's a hard question to answer, but I can tell you that it's not in Iranian law.”

No doubt, however
a) it’s not in Australian law either, and
b) since I’m not asserting it, it’s not for me to answer.
c) since you are asserting it, it’s for you to answer. Go ahead. The whole of your argument depends on it.

As I said, it’s literally meaningless to say that things are equal but different, excepting only if we define different things to be equal in a purely formal sense. For some things this is valid, e.g. right to vote, right to freedom of speech, right to be free of unprovoked aggression.

But for other things it’s not valid, including policies funding benefits, because such policy depends on a threat of physically attacking other people in order to get the money to fund the benefit. So such policies are ethically problematic for equalitarianism, since they intrinsically depend on treating people unequally and aggressively.

“That said, many of your arguments aren't valid. For instance, while both parents should be liable for the child, only one parent will ever have the obligation to carry the child for 9 months inside of her body. That substantially alters the way the law should apply. “

That doesn’t prove my argument is invalid, it proves that yours is. It proves that it is meaningless to assert that the sexes are, or could be treated equally, in respect of anything concerning their biological differences.

>“Similarly, there is no cause for the removal of maternity leave, but possibly an argument to introduce paternity leave (which I think does exist in some places).”

No there’s not, because the interest of the sexes in looking after any given child is not equal, so there’s no reason why it should be treated equally in the first place. A man has, by nature, a viable reproductive strategy that a woman does not: namely, impregnating a woman or women and leaving her or them to look after any resulting child or children as best they can, while he himself spends the resources that might otherwise go to supporting them, on inducing still other women to agree to have sex. It’s true that this offends the ethics of patriarchy, but if women aren’t to be bound by the obligations of patriarchy, then there’s no reason for men be forced to either. Equal provision for children is unequally biased in favour of women’s interests - for the reasons you yourself have identified - and there is no reason why the *female* interest should have precedence, or be taken as the measure of what is just and fair. To treat the sexes equally, the male interest should just as much be respected, enshrined and subsidised in policy? Yes?

But if not, then that only proves my point that it is meaningless and impossible to treat the sexes equally in anything that concerns their biological differences. In which case, the only policy consistent with equality of the sexes is formal equality in being free from unprovoked aggression, and all the freedom that follows from that. But that rules out all so-called affirmative action I’m afraid.

So how about you, or anyone, explain:
1. how the sexes could be treated equally in respect of their biological differences
2. why they should
3. how it could be done without self-contradiction
4. how that justifies the use of aggressive force.

Merely pleading the advantages to women's special interests is no more of an argument than pleading the advantages to men's - by your own theory!

Well a law saying that anyone who is pregnant can ultimately decide whether or not to have an abortion, or that anyone who gives birth is entitled to a period of paid leave. The fact that this will only practically affect women is immaterial, there are many laws aimed at general society that only affect one group in reality.

I also think you're taking the wrong approach to the issue of paid leave - I don't think it's there to cater to a female interest, I think it exists to make the process of child birth easier and therefore more appealing. It's not for the benefit of mothers so much as wider society - we gain a lot from ambitious, educated and hard-working mothers being able to have children.

Finally, why is it my burden to posit the perfect solution to the "equal but different" principle? I reject the all-or-nothing approach you are taking, where if we can't find the perfect solution and there are one or two flaws then the whole idea must be entirely unfounded.

>Well a law saying that anyone who is pregnant can ultimately decide whether or not to have an abortion, or that anyone who gives birth is entitled to a period of paid leave.

Inconsistent with equality of the sexes under law. But if it's permissible, then how about anyone who's male is is entitled to special privileges? Nothing unequal in that, is there?

> The fact that this will only practically affect women is immaterial, there are many laws aimed at general society that only affect one group in reality.

Many, but none consistent with equality under law.

>I also think you're taking the wrong approach to the issue of paid leave - I don't think it's there to cater to a female interest, I think it exists to make the process of child birth easier and therefore more appealing. It's not for the benefit of mothers so much as wider society - we gain a lot from ambitious, educated and hard-working mothers being able to have children.

Anyone can find reason for unequal laws benefitting themselves. My point is only that it can't be reconciled with the stated value of equality, so you haven't got to square one yet.

>Finally, why is it my burden to posit the perfect solution to the "equal but different" principle?

Because I have shown reason why it's impossible, and you are saying it can be done but haven't proved it, so the burden on you is to prove it can. I'm not asking for a "perfect" solution, but you haven't yet even got to one that is possible without self-contradiction. By the equalitarians' own ethos, there is no reason why some people should be able to exploit others, and their self-privileging self-contradictory rationale is not good enough.

Isn't it about time we called a spade a shovel ?
That the Arab moslem countries still have not been able to move out of
the 5Th century is a reflection of their intelligence.
That a man can say another man cannot see my wife is a reflection on
their intelligence in that they think their wife will be raped if another man sees her.

That ultimately is what it is about !

It is why a woman can not be with a man that is not her husband or
brother.
I find it hard to believe that their attitude to women is stuck where
it is because they do not have the intelligence to comprehend their
situation.
Why is their intelligence so compromised ?
I would suggest it is because they have practiced cousin marriage
for generations and generations.

The behavior of Arab and moslem male crowds reflect their problem.
They seem incapable of moderate protest. See their reaction to
Salmon Rushties book, the cartoons in the Danish newspapers, the
burning of the koran. These are typical behavior pattens of those
with intelligence related behavior problems.

All that is pretty harsh, I agree but someone had to throw aside the
polically correctness and say it out loud.

> Inconsistent with equality of the sexes under law. But if it's permissible, then how about anyone who's male is is entitled to special privileges? Nothing unequal in that, is there?

That's entirely different, it's a law targeting a group for biological characteristics (males) rather than for an action that is beneficial to society (giving birth). The law on giving birth attempts to compensate the person who has given birth for the loss that is required, in an attempt to effectively allow them to give birth without suffering for it.

There is a difference between equality under law and the identical treatment by the law. Equality under law can imply that the law recognises differences and then attempts to compensate for them.

Think about this as an example: the law discriminates against older people to the benefit of younger people. If a minor signs a contract, they are not bound by it until they affirm it at a later age. If an adult is on the other end, they are bound by it so long as the minor does not abrogate from it. This is not discriminatory - it is compensating for the inequality between the two people, in that the minor has less capacity to understand what they are doing.

>Because I have shown reason why it's impossible, and you are saying it can be done but haven't proved it, so the burden on you is to prove it can.

I also believe that people injured as a result of someone else's criminal act should be compensated so that it is as if they were never hurt. This is impossible - there is no way to give someone back their leg, the closest we can come is to try and put some kind of cash value on it, which is completely insufficient really.

By your logic, this would mean that because you can never compensate them in the right way, you shouldn't bother trying. My logic is saying that you can never compensate them in the right way, but you should do the best you can anyway.

NQD,

This is slightly off the current line of discussion, but I'm fascinated with your (no doubt, fairly accurate) summing-up of the reason that "compensation" is available in our society for giving birth.

Compensation for such an instinctual human undertaking could only come about in a society that is obsessed with defining all actions and their outcomes in monetary terms - of their representing monetary value, gain or loss.

Societies less obsessed with the motive of profit and more in tune with the intrinsic experience of their humanity would consider a live healthy child to be "compensation" for the act of birthing.

Just an observation....

NQD
Please define equality?

In this context, I think we're talking about social equality - which is a very broadly defined concept, but includes equal rights under law, as well as equal access to social services and equal opportunities in society.

And Poirot: I think the last point is key in terms of our discussion. There are many, many women in our society who will have a baby and that's all they want. There are others, however, who work and want to be able to enjoy everything that comes with motherhood, but also continue in their career. The parental leave scheme exists so that they have this option - it's not rejecting the idea that a baby has value in and of itself at all.

If there was no provision for parental leave, any woman having a child would be forced to choose between the child and her career, which definitely puts her at a social disadvantage compared to a man.

NQD
Your definition
a) is not a definition. I’m asking what equality is, not what it includes
b) is circular – equality includes equal A and equal B and equal C. But I’m asking what equality is, so saying it includes equality is not much of an advance, is it?
c) is internally inconsistent – equal rights under law are not consistent with policy treating people unequally but intended to effect equal opportunities, that’s the whole point
d) is impossible and therefore unreasonable
e) relies on privileging a minority group - (“the state”) - to claim for themselves the double standard of being able to use aggressive force as a means to ends they choose, while banning everyone else from the equal right of doing the same; and relies on allocating unequal benefits to different groups arbitrarily chosen by the group assigning itself superior status and power; thus it embraces and worsens inequality many times over and is hypocritical.

You have only proved my argument – it is meaningless and impossible to attempt to achieve equality of the sexes in respect of their biological differences, and attempting to do so by means of policy can only result in arbitrary and self-interested abuse of power whichever way it is attempted. The fact that one may be in favour of a particular abuse of power is irrelevant.

According to your logic, I would be entitled to handouts, specifically as a male, to engage in unprotected and uncommitted sex with many and various women, on the ground of the “social benefits” I would leave in my wake. I’m starting to come around to your point of view! But children are not a form of chattel belonging to the state or the community, their future efforts presumptively available to be expropriated to fund the benefits which the greedy and unprincipled covet, but aren’t willing to pay for themselves.

The definition was not circular nor internally inconsistent, it was incomplete. I indicated that we are debating not merely equivalence, but "social equality" - as in, equality within society. As "society" in itself is such a broad, all-encompassing term, "social equality" is comprised of many factors, some of which I listed.

These factors can be individually defined if you want. For example:

Equal employment opportunity - the ability to be chosen for work based entirely on merit and achievement and irrespective of factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, policial opinion, marital status, nationality etc. where they do not directly relate to the ability to perform in the job in question.

Equal rights under law: the ability to have access to all rights imposed under law, irrespective of the types of factors mentioned above.

Hopefully you get the idea, but I could go on if you want.

Now all of these things are impossible, I still don't see why they they shouldn't be

Also, by your reasoning, paid parental leave discriminates against infertile women and women who choose not to have babies; government subsidised medical treatment discriminates against healthy people; unemployment benefits discriminate against the employed etc.

>According to your logic, I would be entitled to handouts, specifically as a male, to engage in unprotected and uncommitted sex with many and various women, on the ground of the “social benefits” I would leave in my wake.

I have no idea where you pulled that from. Please explain?

NQD
I’ll answer your questions but first I would like to define our terms because as you know I maintain that the whole concept does not and cannot amount to a logically sensible proposition.

Could you please define equality, rather than describe what you think policy should do. And if the definition resolves back to “society”, please define that too.

Peter Hume.
This sort of clever logic chopping and smarty pants asking for definitions really does not get anybody anywhere. The article (remember that?) was trying to deal with the complex and important issue of democracy, Arabs (with associated religious issues), and the education and status of women. I cannot see how your comments advances the discussion by one whit. If you could possibly take a minute or two off from the 'what do you mean by' stuff I would be grateful if you would answer the basic issue: is the education and status/condition of women in Middle Eastern/Muslim countries likely to aid or hinder the rise of democracy in those countries?
I expect another constipated load of define this and define that. Please understand that all of us could do that, I for one do not because it serves little or no purpose.
Anyway, please answer the question I asked. If it makes you happy you can define all the words you use, but at least try to confront what is a serious issue.

I agree with eyejaw, stop arguing semantics and address all of the other points that I've made. It's impossible to define every aspect of equality here - whole books have been written trying to do this and have not succeeded. I will give you a workable definition under international law and that's the end of defining terms.

Article 26 of the ICCPR:

>All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This has been interpreted to involve the four separate obligations to:

1) guarantee equality before the law, by ensuring that law enforcement authorities shall treat all people without discrimination;
2) guarantee the equal protection of the law, by removing any discriminatory provisions from applicable laws and regulations;
3) prohibit any discrimination in private relationships; and
4) guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination, if necessary, by the adoption of positive action measures in response to the situations of structural discrimination.

This is qualified by the definition of discrimination, which can encompass:
1) direct discrimination;
2) indirect discrimination from specific measures;
3) indirect discrimination highlighted by statistics;
4) discrimination as a failure for reasonable accommodation; and
5) structural discrimination.

"Indirect discrimination" is defined as "treating equally situations that require different treatment".

Eyejaw
I point out that what you are arguing is illogical and self-contradictory, and your response is to degenerate into a personal attack.

Your question assumes that it’s legitimate to use aggressive violence to treat people as ends chosen by you, which I deny.

You need to answer my earlier questions first:
1. If we need to use force - law - to treat people unequally, in order to bring about your ideal of treating women equally, surely that disproves your assumption that the sexes are equal in the first place?

I think it's literally meaningless to say that they sexes are "equal". 2. Do you? 3. But if not, given that they are not factually equal, what could it possibly mean?

You still haven’t shown *why* the sexes should be treated equally when they factually aren’t and can’t be made so, *how* they ever could be without treating people unequally, and why it would justify unprovoked aggression as a means to an end, especially since it’s impossible, and could only ever amount to arbitrary sexism which you falsely *pretend* to be opposed to.

If you can’t get past the issues of principle, you are not qualified to dictate what should be the practice and your question is therefore irrelevant.

NQD
I’m not surprised you didn’t want to define terms, as you have only proved what I’ve been saying all along - that what you are saying is literally meaningless, self-contradictory and impossible, and is used as a pretext for arbitrary power and treating people *unequally*.

>All persons are equal before the law
For starters, the political states that comprise the UN exist solely by their claim that they comprise an *unequal* and superior class vis-à-vis their subject populations.

1. The legislators, in their capacity as legislators, obviously aren’t equal to everyone else, are they? *They* claim a prerogative to use aggressive force as a means to ends, which they forbid on pain of imprisonment to everyone else.

2. Therefore please admit that you are not in favour of all persons being equal before the law.

> and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.

But you yourself are opposed to this, remember? You think you should be able to single out sub-set A of the population for privileges and benefits to which all not-A are not entitled.

3. Please admit that you don’t agree with the equal protection of the law.

> prohibit any discrimination in private relationships

4. So in your opinion it’s a violation of civil rights for a heterosexual to discriminate against people of the same sex in choosing a sexual partner?

5. Please either admit it, or admit that you don’t agree with the prohibition of any discrimination in private relationships.

6. Please give an example of any human action that does not entail discrimination?

Thank you, eyejaw and NQD, for displaying the hypocrisy, sexism, and nonsense of your arguments.

Admit it, what you’re arguing doesn’t make sense in the terms you are saying it does. It only makes sense, in the sense that you demand for yourselves, through political states, the *unequal* right to threaten, fine, handcuff, taser, imprison, or shoot people into submission, to force them to obey you in doing *anything you want them to do and call it equality*, and THAT is what you are really arguing for.

Guess what? You don’t form a morally superior class. You don’t know what’s better for people than their voluntary relations show, and have no right to try to bully them into submission and obedience.

1/2. The legislators are equal before the law, because in theory, everyone has the right to become a legislator.

>But you yourself are opposed to this, remember? You think you should be able to single out sub-set A of the population for privileges and benefits to which all not-A are not entitled.

3. No, you see, this is why we have been going around in circles for the last few posts. This is what you're not getting, that's not what I'm saying.

All not-A would be entitled to anything that A are entitled to, the difference is that all not-A would not be able to claim this.

All men and infertile women should be entitled to claim maternity leave when they give birth. Will they ever give birth? No, but that doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to it by law.

Plus, there is a distinction between protection under the law and benefits from government institutions.

4. That doesn't apply to every single private relationship and no I won't define which ones it does or does not apply to, that's a ridiculous tangent to start going on.

Your last assertion is just ridiculous, so I won't respond to it. What I will note is that you've been building straw men and taking them apart for pages now, but have not actually specified what it is you're envisioning. So go on, what's a better system?

> The legislators are equal before the law, because in theory, everyone has the right to become a legislator.

Incorrect. *Anyone*, not *everyone*, has the right in theory to become a legislator. The legislature intrinsically involves dividing the population into two unequal classes - the ruling class of power “haves” who claim a prerogative to use institutionalised violence to carry their will into effect as against everyone else, and those power “have-notes” who are to be subject to this and denied the equal right to use force defend themselves against the initiation of aggression by the legislators and their agents.

This difficulty is not evaded by your response. Therefore you are not in favour of equality before the law and your whole argument crumbles.

3. "\All not-A would be entitled to anything that A are entitled to, the difference is that all not-A would not be able to claim this."

If not-A can't claim it on the ground that they don't qualify, and can never possibly qualify, then they're not entitled to it, are they? And can never be. Is that honestly the best you can do?

But even taking your argument at face value, then there's no reason in principle why males should not be granted a particular privilege or benefit, for which the qualification is an attribute of maleness, and for which females are intrinsically disqualified. e.g. all persons who beget a child are entitled to certain privileges. According to your logic, all females “would” be entitled to it, it’s just that they can’t claim it. Sorry. Doesn’t make sense. And argues *against* equality before the law, not in favour of it.

> Plus, there is a distinction between protection under the law and benefits from government institutions.

Yes I know there is but how can you have equality in both? They are mutually inconsistent, that's the whole point.

>4. That doesn't apply to every single private relationship and no I won't define which ones it does or does not apply to, that's a ridiculous tangent to start going on.

It’s the other way around - the concept of banning discrimination is ridiculous in the first place because a) all human action intrinsically involves discrimination, b) you can show no reason why some discrimination should be arbitrarily persecuted, and c) those with the privilege to decide will be unequal vis-à-vis everyone else. Result – complete failure of your argument to get to square one.

" you've been building straw men and taking them apart for pages now, but have not actually specified what it is you're envisioning.

Sorry, not good enough.

You haven't shown that equality of the sexes is a meaningful, possible, or ethical goal of policy; and I’ve shown that it’s not.

It's not "ridiculous" to point out that you are arguing for the use of aggressive force to achieve ends that are illogical and impossible, that you are completely unable to defend without self-contradiction, and that amount to nothing more than an abuse and *unequality* of arbitrary power.

Therefore I've been refuting your illogic with sound arguments, not building straw men.

“So go on, what's a better system?”

Put it this way - what would you replace slavery with? With not-slavery, right?. What would you replace rape with? With either consensual sex, or none at all, right?

What should we replace institutionalized coercion with? A better system than instituionalised coercion is to respect voluntary relations, and to recognise that majority opinion does not make oppression of minorities okay. If the women in question are being coerced into something, we are all agreed that coercion is justified to remedy the problem. But if they're not, then their voluntary social relations are none of your business - and certainly no warrant for the use of force against anyone else.

So is pedophilia ok? Whilst we're not intervening in peoples' private relationships.

Is discriminating against children okay in terms of denying them the vote and other political and civil rights?

Everyone always agrees that children must form a separate case in the nature of things, because they start out as babies so there's no other option than for other people to make decisions on their behalf.

But treating everyone like children cannot form the basis of a theory of government, because we are not children in the care of our parent the state. That is precisely the objection to paternalistic government, and it seems to blow hot and cold to criticise it in traditional patriarchal society but affirm the paternalistic and anti-liberty tenets of it all over again in political feminism.

You still haven't establised the case for aggression, paternalism and inequality under law, I suspect that deep down you don't really agree with them yourself.

And you just wrote 3 paragraphs without answering my question.

If there is an adult having sex with a 12-year-old, should that be allowed to continue by the state?

Not so fast. You answer my questions first.
1. how the sexes could be treated equally in respect of their biological differences?
2. why they should?
3. how it could be done without self-contradiction?
4. how that justifies the use of aggressive force?
5. an example of any human action that does not entail discrimination?

Easy:

> 1. how the sexes could be treated equally in respect of their biological differences?

They can't. they can, however, be treated so as to have and equal status in society.

> 2. why they should?

Because if they aren't, one is being treated better than the other, which is unfair to the poorly treated gender.

> 3. how it could be done without self-contradiction?

As above.

> 4. how that justifies the use of aggressive force?

Where the harm done by the force is less than the harm that woud have been done had the force not been used.

> 5. an example of any human action that does not entail discrimination?

That's a moot point. I'm not trying to eradicate discrimination, just to mitigate the damage that it can cause.

Now, answer my question. I'm going to bet that you're about to dodge it again.

NQD
The only way that having-a-baby could be “treated so as to have equal status” with not-having-a-baby is if
a) a baby was treated as of no value, or
b) someone who had not had a baby was accorded benefits as if he had, when he had no occasion and no need for them.

You haven’t proved why it’s “fair” for unlike cases to be treated alike; but it’s not obviously any fairer than for like cases to be treated unlike – the opposite of fairness.

Either way you contradict yourself. Your arguments don’t make sense but it’s not about reason, is it? It’s about you trying to force other people to comply with your opinions that are obviously irrational and violent.

“That's a moot point.”
If it was a moot point, there’d be something to say for either side of the question. But you can’t find *any* example of any human action *whatsoever* that does not involve discrimination; and - absent aggression - you can give no reason why some discrimination should be vilified as a crime, while other discrimination should be enshrined as a human right!

You have not shown any reason whatsoever that there is any “harm” in other people’s non-coercive and non-abusive interactions. And there is no reason to think that any discrimination but the kind you advocate – arbitrary aggression - is harmful.

Thus it’s not a moot point at all – you are plain wrong and don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

* * *

“If there is an adult having sex with a 12-year-old, should that be allowed to continue by the state?”

Rape is already illegal, so there is no issue here of non-consensual sex.

I had sex under the age of consent, as did my partner and most of my peers.

1. So are you going to tell me I was horribly raped in a most serious crime?

The majority of Australian teenagers have sex before the age of consent.

2. Are you going to tell me that they’re being raped but don’t realize it?

The statutory age of consent didn’t exist until the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century it was ten in many states of the USA. in the last century the average age of puberty in women has fallen three years. And in all cultures and ages that I know of before that, the question was decided by the person himself or herself, or by their parents or guardians.

3. Are you going to tell me that in all human cultures up until the statutory age of consent in the nineteenth century, ordinary human sexuality was actually child sex abuse after all – it’s just that they were all too stupid or evil to understand how virtuous and necessary your opinion is?

The statutory age of consent bears no rational relation to any particular biological stage of development, nor to the statutory age of consent in other jurisdictions.

4. Please define the *biological* stage of development at which consensual sex becomes non-abusive; and the necessarily negative consequences of sex after consent becomes possible but before it becomes legal? Prove it.
5. If ordinary people or their parents or guardians, are too stupid or too evil to decide on their own consensual sexuality, how can the state be in any better position since it claims no authority but representing their opinion?

I know a casework manager and a caseworker in JIRT, the half-police, half child protection team investigating serious crimes of child abuse. It turns out the overwhelming bulk of their work is not protecting children at all, but intrusion into the lives of sexually mature young women (sorry, “children”) for the heinous crime of making love with their boyfriends (sorry, “child sex abuse”). To avoid traumatizing the “victim” by multiplicity of interviews on the same questions by CP, then JIRT, then police, then court, the first interview is highly formal, and video’d; and the next is cross-examination in court. Almost all of the girls decline to participate in prosecuting their lovers, surprise surprise.
(cont.)

(cont.)
But the officials don’t advise them of this option on the ground that they are abused child victims incapable of deciding. They have to have the courage, and take the initiative, to refuse the bullying panoply of authority ranged against them; or participate in bad faith in persecuting their boyfriends.

6. What makes you think that the harm done by the intrusion, humiliation, trauma of their sex lives being reported, being taken from school to formal video’d police interview on the intimate details of their private consensual sex life, – (how would you like it?) - cross-examination in judicial proceedings; arresting, charging, prosecuting, and the imprisonment and vilification of their consensual sexual partners, for uncountable thousands of young people, is less than the harm of their private, consensual love-making?
7. What *is* the harm of their private, consensual love-making? Prove it.
8. Since the statutory age of consent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, please admit that the same facts are “abusive” in one jurisdiction but ordinary human behaviour in another.
9. If you say that the issue is not the age of consent per se but the adulthood of the partner, presumably the age of adulthood for a discussion of sexuality is the age of consent. So if a girl has sex with her boyfriend of 15, would this be legitimate consensual love-making? Or rape of a child? Or is she raping him? Or both?
10. But a day later when he turns 16, it’s child rape, right?
11. Please admit this makes no sense except by “might is right”; the idea that truth or morality is whatever the most violent party declares it to be.
12. Please admit that, according to your logic, there is no reason why persons who are factually unequal should not be arbitrarily treated so as to have equal status; and there is no reason why this should not entail treating adults as children.

I once visited a friend of mine in a mountain village in Indonesia. Sixteen extended family members were in a small hut, dandling a baby.

(cont.)

The baby's aunt was blowing raspberries on his belly. Then she put her mouth fully over his genitals and blew raspberries. He burbled and giggled delightedly, and was obviously receiving pleasure. Everyone carried on chatting and socialising just as if nothing was happening. And I thought “God if this was Australia, they would have called the police, and the media, and the United Nations.” If the statists had their way, she be imprisoned for 20 years.

But those people obviously understood that whether sexual behaviour is abusive or not, comes down to whether the persons concerned find it to be so. It is nonsense to declare, in the abstract, in ignorance of fact, in defiance of reason, that it is abusive when it *factually* and *ethically* isn’t.

In short, these are not laws of child protection but of sexual morality. They are in the same category as laws criminalizing homosexuality and fornication. They are motivated, not because *factually* sexually mature people having consensual sex is abusive, but by moral horror of the prurient and self-opinionated at the very idea of people having consensual sex of which they disapprove. JIRT are the modern-day chastity police, that is all, the western equivalent of the religious morality police of Iran; only the western religion is state-worship.

There is no reason why the state should make the decision as to *consensual* sex, instead of the person concerned or their parents or guardians, and the harm done by the state through these laws, *especially to young people*, is much greater than the harm they prevent.

There is an alternative that you don’t seem to have considered, to your assumption that officials are categorically superior to humanity in general, and that truth or morality are properly decided at the point of a gun.

This is that other people’s non-coercive and non-abusive relations are none of your business; and that people aren’t being “harmed” for no other reason than that they disagree with the irrational ignorance., and intolerant moral arrogance, of conservative thugs.

Now fair’s fair. Please answer my numbered questions – this time without self-contradictory evasion.

I don't have to answer your numbered questions, because I don't remember saying that I agree with the way our age of consent laws are implemented. This is an example of your straw man tactics - you made an assumption about my stance and then spent an incredible four posts picking that assumption apart.

Irrespective of that, you are using a rational method of argument supported by anecdotal evidence. For all you know, that baby in Indonesia could have been horribly abused for years after your brief encounter and what you saw was only the start.

But again, I did not intend on spending any time defending age of consent laws. I was more focussed on a completely different line of discussion, which you dismissed in one sentence:

> "Rape is already illegal, so there is no issue here of non-consensual sex."

So I will accept everything you said about the age of consent being arbitrary. What you have said there indicates that you do support the banning of "non-consensual sex". Please define this - when is a sexual act "non-consensual" so as to require intervention by "aggression and violence", as you say, and when is it not?

The other point that I will argue is this:

> There is an alternative that you don’t seem to have considered, to your assumption that officials are categorically superior to humanity in general, and that truth or morality are properly decided at the point of a gun.

They are superior in some ways. For better or for worse, we have entrusted our officials with certain responsibilities over certain aspects of our lives, giving them powers that the rest of us don't have. Of course, when I say "us", you are going to start talking about the tyranny of the majority again - which is a valid point, but I don't see a way that you could possibly maintain any large, organised society absent such officials.

And these are not responsibilities that I deem to be "artitrary". To the contrary, each one of them is the result of thousands of years of societal development. Could society have developed differently? Sure, but I look at all of the societies in the world and I don't see a better system.

Again, you're arguing on the basis of "if it's not good for everyone then it's good for no one" whereas I am arguing that we should be aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

> This is that other people’s non-coercive and non-abusive relations are none of your business; and that people aren’t being “harmed” for no other reason than that they disagree with the irrational ignorance., and intolerant moral arrogance, of conservative thugs.

But who's to say their relations are non-coercive and non-abusive? You obviously disagree with the way this is currently determined, but do you disagree with it in principle? If you believe that when they are coercive and abusive, then there is a mandate to intervene, ultimately there has to be someone making that call and someone with the power to get in the middle of their private relationship using - yes - violence.

If, on the other hand, you believe that there should never be any form of law enforcement by the state, all I can really do is point you in the direction of Somalia and ask how pleasant you think living there would be.

It is possible (not necessarily probable) that democracy will be accompanied by a slow process of liberation for women. It was several centuries after we in the west embraced democracy (though not so long after we embraced liberal democracy) that we began unravelling the many layers of sexism and misogyny in our society. Whether that unravelling is complete or not is another debate. It wasn't so long ago that women in the west belonged first to their fathers and later to their husbands; it wasn't so long ago that they could carry out the same jobs for less pay; nor was it long ago that they were not allowed to vote. Men gave up all of these special privileges.

Perhaps when the men of the Muslim world get used to thinking and acting for themselves, and voicing their opinions rather than having their thoughts, acts and words dictated to them, they will open up to the idea that women can be their equals.

1.
“when is a sexual act "non-consensual" so as to require intervention by "aggression and violence" … and when … not?”

In general, there is no difficulty in defining consent. Any dictionary definition will do. How about “permit, approve, or agree”? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent

>”But who's to say their relations are non-coercive and non-abusive?”

We don’t start by presuming all interactions are coercive and abusive but that, if you can prove consent, the state can grant permission.

It’s the other way around. People should be free to do what they want so long as they are not initiating aggression against others.

“You obviously disagree with the way this is currently determined, but do you disagree with it in principle?”

I don’t disagree with the use of force to repel aggression. I’ve done it for others. I’ve had others do it for me.

I do reject on ethical and pragmatic grounds the state’s claim of a monopoly on aggression, but it’s also worse on ‘greatest good for greater number’ grounds. The entire institution of government is founded on this ethical double standard: “I’m allowed to aggress against you, but you’re not allowed to aggress against me”. We only have to reflect on the uncountable massive deaths in the wars of aggression now and in the last century to see what this licence for large-scale armed aggression can and must lead to.

But the state’s depredations and crimes as against its own citizens are also enormous, although unnoticed, for the same reason that the criminality of slavery was invisible to so many societies which had slavery for so many centuries. It was normal to them: they couldn’t see it; just as we don’t see forcing some to labour under coercion for the privilege of others as being immoral. One day the scales will fall from our eyes and we will refuse to join in, and denounce those who do it.

2.
Everything that you say from “They are superior in some ways” to “greatest good for the greatest number of people” assumes what’s in issue.

I don’t agree that we “entrust” to the state its claimed monopoly of initiating aggression. The state was around for many centuries before people ever got the vote. It is a complete fiction that it presumptively represents “us”, “the greater good”, “society”, “the public interest”, “the social contract” and so on.

Every child having undergone at least 10 years compulsory indoctrination, is it any wonder people in general were never taught, and never learnt, to critique the sheer falsehoods propagated to legitimise as selfless and indispensable an organization that institutionalizes aggression and legalizes fraud?

Democratic states are the successors of pre-existing monarchic states, and all monarchic states are descended from pre-existing protection rackets. A state is just a protection racket that made it.

If 12 men and one woman vote whether to have sex, and the men vote for, and the woman votes against, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to use force, and if they do, it doesn’t mean it’s not rape. Democratic government is incapable of providing an improvement on exactly this ethical problem; on the contrary, it institutionalizes it.

Political states including democracies *consist of* claming for their functionaries a monopoly of what is crime for everyone else. So we get this cognitive dissonance, this double standard by which we call the same act by one name if a mundane does it, versus what it’s called if the state does it:
Murder/execution
Mass murder/defence policy
Demanding money with menaces/taxation
Counterfeiting/legal tender
Fraud /monetary policy
People trafficking/immigration policy
Kidnapping/removing into care
Discrimination/affirmative action
Drug trafficking/pharmaceutical benefits
Collusion/co-operation
Monopoly/public service
and so on.

Your argument, in summary, is that democratic states are ethically and pragmatically better than the alternative. But as with the abolition of slavery, the proper way of thinking about it is not to say “It’s necessary to supply public utilities. It’s sanctioned by the majority. It’s sanctioned by law. It’s beneficial for its victims. And you must be joking to suggest we could or should do without it."

Yet the arguments for taxation are exactly the same as those for slavery, because what is taxation but the coerced taking of the fruits of someone’s labour? If the tax rate were 100 percent, that would be indistinguishable from slavery, right?

A better way to think of it is: How could we do better?

The first principle is obvious. Once we recognize that aggression is not ethically better, we should reject it, simple as that.

It is also *no truer* that government is pragmatically superior as a basis for social co-operation, than that slavery is pragmatically superior to free labour.

The complexity of large society is an argument *against* central planning, not *in favour of* it.

As for Somalia, we have to compare apples with apples: Somalia with and Somalia without government. It’s not at all clear that Somalia is more lawless, disorderly, unjust, or poorer without government than with. Interesting article here: http://mises.org/daily/2066

Once we recognize the immorality and inexpedience of democratic government at doing the things it claims are for the greater good, we should denounce it, not say “Ah well this is as good as it gets, so let’s join the scramble for mutual plunder, and talk up our own claims and privileges, or those of our tribe or party or victim status, as against everyone else.”

>"In general, there is no difficulty in defining consent. Any dictionary definition will do. How about “permit, approve, or agree”?"

Oh please! After pages of pedantry, that's the best you can come up with?

What if something is "agreed to" under duress? Or false pretences? What in the case where one party doesn't ascertain consent? Can it be assumed or must it be proven? When is someone unable to give consent? When severely intoxicated? Mentally impaired? Too young to understand what they are doing? And where are the lines in that?

Id a wife's consent to her husband assumed? If not, is it taken into consideration? Is a five-year-old able to consent? Is consent assumed because of lack of physical or verbal resistance or must it be affirmed in some way? Is it the burden of the person accused of rape to prove consent or the person making the accusation to prove non-consent?

I could go on, but I won't. Please give a better definition.

>"I do reject on ethical and pragmatic grounds the state’s claim of a monopoly on aggression, but it’s also worse on ‘greatest good for greater number’ grounds..."

I'm not quite clear on what you're advocating for then. Are you suggesting that individual citizens should have the right to assault the state's organs in order to enforce their individual morality?

>"Every child having undergone at least 10 years compulsory indoctrination"

So are you advocating that we abolish mandatory education?

>"Yet the arguments for taxation are exactly the same as those for slavery, because what is taxation but the coerced taking of the fruits of someone’s labour?"

That is an extremely flawed assertion. Taxation revenues are collected universally and in theory, they are spent to everyone's benefit. People who pay taxes all use the healthcare, education, transport, energy and other benefits that the taxation is used for.

Don't get me wrong, I think that our government is far too big at the moment and I am, in principle, strongly against the government imposing morality on its citizenry. But to a point - which is the key thing here. Even you have admitted once or twice during this lengthy debate that complete anarchy is not desirable and there needs to be some form of organised society. The question is, where is the line drawn?

And my problem with your reasoning comes here. We have *gasp* an inconsistency.

>"Your argument, in summary, is that democratic states are ethically and pragmatically better than the alternative...""

>"A better way to think of it is: How could we do better?"

The question "How could we do it better?" does not necessarily require that we dismantle it and start again. History shows that whenever there is a severely radical change by someone (i.e. yourself) who claims that their system of beliefs has every answer to every problem, they end-up being wrong, disastrously wrong.

As sad and frustrating as the process is, incremental reform through democratic governance is the best system that we have and, due to its nature, is constantly getting better. You're right about the inherent flaw in democratic representation, however there is no conceivable way to facilitate a situation where no one is harmed. The system you are advocating would lead to a far worse outcome - the tyranny of a strong minority, rather than the majority.

For instance, even with five men and seven women, if all four men unanimously wanted sex and none of the women wanted it, absent a democratic system, the four men would prevail. The same could go for two strong men and two women versus two weaker men and five women.

You are taking for granted the mentality of our society without really paying respects to where it comes from. Comparing us with Somalia is perfectly valid - Somalia is an example of a society that is not conditioned to respect the law above all else but mistrust authority, as ours is. It's actually an incredible mentality really - the result of 1,000 years of four-way struggles between the British people, the monarchy, the aristocracy and the Church.

I guarantee that without all of the institutions at which you cry foul, you would be screaming for more governance, not less.

“The question is, where is the line drawn?”

As I said, *in general* - i.e. between competent adults - there is no issue as to consent. But where someone’s ability to consent is impaired – because of young age, old age, developmental delay, dementia, intoxication, or whatever – there are real difficulties in principle and in practice; and I don’t pretend to know the answers in the abstract.

However these very real issues with consent will inhere in any society. But just because society needs to draw a line, doesn’t mean it’s best drawn by a monopoly of coercion. These problems are *not* presumptively better solved by way of centralized legislature, or by majority vote for that matter.

Since, as I will show, the devil’s in the detail, even better solutions might and probably would be, by way of decentralized adjudication among freely competing systems of judicature, rather than by way of a centralized, one-size-fits-all, general decision in the abstract by a coercive monopoly.

Details? http://mises.org/books/private_production_of_defense.pdf

Duress?
Negates consent. My argument on this is consistent both with sexual and with civil relations. Yours isn’t. You think duress amounts to rape in cases of sex, but forms the necessary basis of social co-operation in the case of the state.

False pretences?
Depends what’s being falsely pretended. Wearing make-up? No. Saying you don’t have an STI when you know you do? HIV? Yes. But the devil’s in the detail. What about not saying you have thrush when you know you do?

Intoxication?
Being intoxicated of itself doesn’t remove the ability to consent. Being passed out does.

Young age
I think with sexually immature minors in general, the problems of undue influence, of lack of capacity, of risk of harm, and problems of evidence justify a general rule. But I do acknowledge that many societies in history didn’t think so, and I think the example I gave shows it’s simply untrue that everything caught by the general rule is necessarily factually or ethically abusive.

Assumed
That’s a hard one because most sexual relations don’t involve explicit consent, but tacit consent...

...understood by body language, eyes, voice tone etc. Are they rape therefore? No.

In law, we're talking about imprisonment for years, so the onus must be on the accuser. In morality? Devil’s in the detail.

Wife
Depends whether she has consented to such an assumption, rebuttable by her explicit refusal.

In fact the law for centuries until recently was that it was an irrebutable presumption. Your opposition to that would be consistent if you opposed forcible violation of consent as a general principle, but you don’t.

What about child support? Is his consent needed? Don’t tell me, lemme guess? – her consent is needed in what concerns her interest; but his isn’t in what concerns his?

“The question "How could we do it better?" does not necessarily require that we dismantle it and start again….”

No. But it requires that we stop affirming what we cannot justify.

Coercion is no proof of truth or morality. The majority is not, by definition, right. The state’s rulers don’t know better than everyone else put together. No-one has a moral right to force others to sacrifice their peaceable values under threat of imprisonment.

(And therefore there’s no inconsistency in my argument).

“For instance, even with [a stronger minority, the minority] would prevail [by force].”

True, but
a) that’s an argument *against* might is right, not in favour of it,
and
b) the fact that crime will probably always exist is no reason to legitimize it, is it?

So far as democracy unjustifiably violates people’s right to peaceable freedom – which it is doing *more and more, not less and less* - we should condemn it, just as much as if it were a minority!

And anyway it is pure fiction that any action of democratic rulers necessarily represents the majority. At best the electoral process provides no evidence.

“Are you suggesting that individual citizens should have the right to assault the state's organs in order to enforce their individual morality?”

No, I’m suggesting anyone has the right to defend against aggressive force by anyone. (Your apprehension this would result in chaos is ...

… unfounded. A general right to *initiate aggression* would result in chaos, and *this is exactly what states claim and exercise*. You ignore the possibility the status quo is *not* the best solution.)

> Taxation revenues are collected universally

No they’re not. Tax paid by those whose income is itself funded by tax is mere book-keeping conjuration; an illusion obscuring from the indoctrinated the fact that the productive class is expropriated under coercion to fund the unequal privileges of a ruling class who would rather live by force and fraud than *work* to produce services that society would *voluntarily* pay for.

It’s not about “universality”, it’s about coercion. If everyone is raped, that doesn’t mean it’s not rape, does it? It’s an absurd argument.

> and in theory, they are spent to everyone's benefit.

Such theory is self-serving and false, but even if it was right, imagine arguing “Let’s use slaves to provide public utilities: that means it’s not slavery.”

With respect, you’re only exemplifying the moral confusion from years of mandatory indoctrination. An intelligent and caring person, you unreflectingly condemn slavery and rape on the one hand, but support taxation and the state with the same breath, while *completely unable* to distinguish them by any moral or rational criterion except self-contradictory ones.

“I guarantee … you would be screaming for more governance, not less.”

Would you accept from me a form of argument that I “guarantee” you “would” be much unhappier not agreeing with me? Didn’t think so.

It’s not a question of abolishing the state. But we should *recognise* the unprovoked institutionalized aggression on which it is based. We should *openly withdraw* consent when it falsely claims to selflessly know what’s better for people than people; and not just uncritically propagate the moral and intellectual falsehoods of majority rule and institutionalized coercion.

And if we achieved no other result than a greater popular demand for more freedom and less government in our time, that would be a good thing.

Femaleness or democracy of themselves are no justification for initiating aggression, legalizing fraud, or claiming unequal privilege.

I took the liberty of going back a few pages. When I was arguing for aiming for equality between the sexes, even if that means differing treatment, you said:

> "It's not "ridiculous" to point out that you are arguing for the use of aggressive force to achieve ends that are illogical and impossible, that you are completely unable to defend without self-contradiction, and that amount to nothing more than an abuse and *unequality* of arbitrary power."

Right? Now you argued:

> "The Devil's in the detail."

As in, the line is somewhere, but you can't say for sure where. Which is what I was saying when you attacked my policy idea as "illogical and impossible" because I couldn't tell you precisely where the line was.

In short, you have a losing argument by your own standards - you are advocating arbitrary aggression to intervene where someone, somewhere sees the threat of non-consensual sex.

The idea of privatising law enforcement is interesting, but again could go HORRIBLY wrong. Especially because the judgment you get would depend entirely on which court you happened to go to. For a fair system there are a number of requirements:

1) Consistency
2) Independence
3) A fair appeal/review system

I can see a lot of issues with the system you are proposing. In Australia, our judges are given life tenure and a guaranteed salary, meaning that there are no incentives for them to give judgments other than what they think is just.

Also, we have several levels of appeal and the courts all work from each other's decisions so that there is some measure of consistency. Again, it's not perfect, but the system you are proposing would surely lead to decisions being influenced by other factors, such as profits and pressure groups. Also, the different systems would be competing for more customers, meaning that their success or failure would be measured by how they appealed to the people who go to court. Surely the more _appealing_ court would be the one that gives you an easier judgment or the one that pays more compensation etc.

The difference between your difficulties and mine are that you have no objection *in principle* to the use of coercion to bully people into getting what one wants. I oppose it consistently in principle, the problem being that in some cases it’s difficult or impossible to know *in practice* whether or not there was in fact consent or coercion.

* * *

The idea of freely competing justice services runs so contrary to such a centuries-old norm, into which we are born and indoctrinated, that it can be hard to get one’s head around it. For example the 3 virtues of a law enforcement system that you mention are virtues of a *state monopoly* system. So long as the parties have voluntarily chosen the procedure, and impose no costs on third parties, there is no virtue in other procedures being imposed from outside; and indeed no way of *knowing* that any extraneous values are fairer than the other values the parties are trying to achieve.

(Besides, the state justice system is obviously not “independent” of the biggest aggressor – the state. And there can be no “fairness” in Caesar appealing to Caesar. And neither legislative nor judicial law-making is consistent – they routinely contradict their own prior decisions.)

There are successful examples of private security services all around us. The starting point is to recognize that police and justice services are kinds of security services. Examples with police are competing private security firms. Examples with investigation/forensic services are competing insurance firms.

We see examples of competing “courts”, and jurisprudence, in commercial law, where parties to a contract nominate an adjudicator in case of dispute. The arbitrators or “judges” are usually respected experts in their field. Different judges may, and do, judge the same set of facts differently and by adhering to their own precedents, thus produce and offer on the market different competing systems of jurisprudence. The more respected judges are more in demand, and the rules they formulate tend to be adopted more generally, as being better at resolving disputes, i.e. fairer.

Why do the parties do this?

Because it is quicker, fairer and much cheaper than the dilatory, expensive and highly unsatisfactory government monopoly courts.

What prevents this from becoming the general pattern is that the government courts actively squelch it, surprise surprise. The monopoly courts override contracts agreeing to make the adjudicators’ decisions binding, thus in effect banning their competition!

It may be said that what prevents such a market in jurisprudence from degenerating into chaos is the over-arching protection of the state. But this assumes what is in issue; and the sovereign states are, as between themselves, in the same state of “anarchy” that they say is non-viable for sovereign individuals.

We would expect a monopoly agency that can unilaterally charge what “prices” it wants, and unilaterally define what “services” to provide, to
a) constantly increase what it charges
b) constantly re-define what justifies its intervention so as to increase its own power
c) constantly provoke disputes which it intervenes in to settle in its own favour.
And this is what we do in fact see with the state.

An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms, as is a defender with an open-ended licence for aggression. We would expect from such an agency a state of perpetual war. And that’s what we see with the modern democratic states – who also replaced the old monarchical limited war, with modern total war. We would expect them to be launching property violations on an unprecedented scale, and to be constantly talking up new division and disharmony. And that’s exactly what we do see.

We would expect such an agency to produce results less and less satisfactory from the “consumers’” point of view, and to be run more and more to further the interests of those running it. And that’s exactly what we do see.

Thus it is probably untrue that democratic states minimize aggression, property violations and injustice in the community – they aggravate them.

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion instead of the ad hominem bunfight that too often passes for debate in here. Just out of curiosity are you a lawyer?

Alright, just got to reading that treatise you linked to, so now I feel like I know where you're coming from more - although I was really surprised at how poorly reasoned it mostly was. It provided very little evidence for most of its claims and seemed to just assume that the reader would agree with every assertion, many of which were extremely dubious.

>"The difference between your difficulties and mine are that you have no objection *in principle* to the use of coercion to bully people into getting what one wants. I oppose it consistently in principle, the problem being that in some cases it’s difficult or impossible to know *in practice* whether or not there was in fact consent or coercion. "

No, you agree with me that in certain cases, it is ok to use coercion to prevent a greater crime - for instance, coercion is justifiable to prevent rape, whatever you define "rape" to be. The problem with your reasoning is that you presume this is not coercion, somehow things you agree with are an exception.

WRT commercial law, you're overlooking the fact that if a ruling is unjust, the parties can always appeal to the courts - there is a check mechanism. Individual arbitrators cannot stray from the actual law and if they do, courts can overrule them.

Saying that, I see a lot of validity to what you're proposing - in Commercial law. I think that it would be beneficial to allow companies to be bound by looser or tighter sets of regulations based on cost vs safety provided. However, law enforcement is a completely different issue - whoever is enforcing the law must necessarily have more power than whoever is not, otherwise the law is not *enforced* per se. You can't honestly expect to have an "opt-in" criminal law system - it would mean that those who opted-out would be able to commit crimes with impunity.

Here's my central issue with the treatise you linked to: it's poor understanding of economics. It dismissed that humanity is only aggressive as there is proof that humanity can be logical. What it overlooked is the whole idea of _incentives_. Humans act aggressively partly by nature, but also where there is an incentive to do so - similar for restraint. A government that is scrutinised enough and is accountable to "the people", in that they can be voted-out by a majority, will be less likely to be self-serving as a result. That's the key factor that is being overlooked in this absolute libertarianism.

There is no practical reason why Angus Houston couldn't just take over the country if he disagreed with the government - but we know that he never will. In most other countries, he would - there are constantly such military coups occurring and most of the world is run by military governments. The reason he actually can't is that the military wouldn't follow him, because they don't trust in him enough. The unique history of Western Europe, particularly Britain and France, has resulted in a system and a society with so many checks on power that no single person or group can take all of it - not even the ones who technically hold it.

Of course I am opposed in principle to "might is right", however we have to recognise that it *is* right in practise - the mightiest will necessarily be able to impose their will on the less mighty, so will be "right" for all intents and purposes. I argue that the best system is one that distributes might as far as possible, whilst implementing checks and balances on said might. Our institutions all work incredibly intricately to keep each other in check, some of which (i.e. the media) are not state-run at all. A democracy places power in the hands of the majority, the system you propose would practically place power in the hands of whatever stronger minority is able to gain more power than the majority. That is why I am opposed to it.

(And yes, it has been a nice discussion and I am actually a law student - and to come clean, I'm the author of the original article, which is why I as following the debate so far in the first place...)

"Of course I am opposed in principle to "might is right", however we have to recognise that it *is* right in practise - the mightiest will necessarily be able to impose their will on the less mighty, so will be "right" for all intents and purposes."

Then you have no ground to complain *even in principle* if people are misogynistic or racist, do you?

Well this is much better than the misandrist feminist driven western world society which has engulfed Australia, America and Europe.

I do, because I believe that might should be mitigated through being distributed as widely as possible, so that more people will be "right" than not - which would prevent racism or misogyny.