Misogynists Gonna…Misogynate? (or, More Issues with That Mises.ca Post)

55

Mises.ca Editor-in-Chief James Miller is about to learn that he can’t outrun the Internet.

Earlier this week, Miller wrote a piece called “Why Slut-Shame” in which he completely failed to provide a comprehensive argument for why we should shame sluts aside from “Well, we’ve always done that; we gotta keep those sluts out of our society.” Miller caught an appropriate amount of backlash from commenters around social media and the blogotubes, and then someone took the post down from Mises.ca.

But you can’t get away from the Internet. Miller, for whatever reason, has kept the post up on his personal blog, and you can still find a cached version of the page on Google. So, let’s see what he has to say.

Catch That Religious Bigotry?

Though other pens have covered the implicit racism, explicit sexism, and other problems with his post, I wonder if anyone has noticed this part:

Enshrining marriage as the prime abettor for physical relations – like it or not – has been a freeing force from paganism.

Sigh. First of all, the term “paganism” encompasses a great score of faith systems and cultures, from ancient times and today, not just the Greco-Romans that he references. Second, the idea that paganism was or is something that people need to be freed from, is, problematic at best. Miller has predictably linked paganism with sexual proclivity, when such a connection is tenuous at best. “Pagans,” practically invented the kind of monogamous marriage from which modern-day Christians draw their traditions. I doubt Miller thinks we should be freed from that.

The idea that pagans are orgy-throwing sexual deviants is about as old and tired as the idea that they commonly practiced human sacrifice. Come on, now.

Let He Who is Without Sin…

Miller also says that slut shaming has been around since the beginnings of Christianity. I neither have the time nor the patience to deal with all the Christian commentary on sex from Paul to present day (though I can point you to someone who can), but I do know who the original anti-slut shamer was.

They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 

John 8:3-7

I’ll say it: Jesus wouldn’t want you to hate on “sluts.” If you care more about your religion than your god, you have bigger problems than what other people do with their bodies.

Here’s the Real Problem

I heard all the hubbub about this article on Facebook. I talked with Cathy, who was linked in the piece, about it. We effortlessly agreed that the piece is a crock of nonsense under the guise of reason that attempts to control the behavior and sexuality of women.

The problem is that we weren’t at all surprised. Cathy and I (and other women in the movement) see this kind of crap every day. Our movement is filled with people like Miller, and that’s the real problem here. While I am happy that our community is properly scandalized by this piece, it’s time that those same people learned that this kind of behavior and thought is more common than they would like to admit and start making efforts to stop it.

  • James Miller

    Thank you for the response Gina. I would just like to remind you that I ended my piece by pointing out: “The target of my disrespect is always free to ignore.”

    I am not trying to physically control behavior any more than you are trying to control my thinking. I simply issued an opinion, for which I was vehemently attacked for. That’s all fine and good. What’s not is that my detractors are so perturbed over my opinion on shaming, they have taken to shaming me – so if by your theory that shaming is oppressive, then you are oppressing me.

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that criticism over life choices is totally harmful and shouldn’t be done, and then go about engaging in the same type of critique.

    I look forward to your response.

    • Dustin K

      …did he really just play the “You can’t be intolerant of my intolerance” card? DID I SOMEHOW GET TRANSPORTED BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL?!

      • James Miller

        Sorry, it’s ideologically inconsistent to claim “shame for me, not for thee.”

        • anna

          nu uh.

      • Madfoot713

        He played the “let’s agree to disagree” card. You can be intolerant of his opinions just like he’s intolerant of “sluttiness”, but you can’t censor his beliefs or take away his right to express them. That’s why libertarian circles are an excellent space to have these culture war debates, in my opinion, since libertarians come from diverse backgrounds and we know we won’t try to use force to enforce our standards on you.

    • LibbyBells

      Oh, the poor man, he is being shamed. Do you hear yourself? You think that you should be perfectly free to shame and beat down generations of women and that those women should just sit there and… what? Think of England? Take it? It sounds like rape-culture in an easy-to-swallow pill form.

      • Andrea Castillo

        I don’t think you read his comment very closely.

        Miller accepts that others can shame him for his choices and thoughts just as he can shame others for their choices and thoughts. Gina wishes to shame Miller for his choices and thoughts but not be shamed for hers.

        He is not contending that he should be “perfectly free from shame,” but that intellectually honest people should be consistent in the matter.

        • James Miller

          Thank you very much for your thoughtful and straightforward comments Andrea. You are completely correct.

    • A few things in response to this:

      1. Critique and shaming are not the same thing. Critique requires thought, an
      argument, an explanation for why what someone has done or said is wrong.
      Critique is most often put at someone’s actions, not someone’s person. Shaming is aimed at someone’s person, that they are a bad person for their action or their thoughts. They are very separate things.

      Critique of sluts often fails under scrutiny and the application of a fairly
      common libertarian ethic (ie, that people should be free to do what they want
      so long as they are not harming anyone else). Who, precisely, is harmed by the safe promiscuity of women? Arguments that it harms society fall very flat. The closest anyone has gotten to a successful argument that promiscuity causes harm is that it causes harm to the person in question, and even that is clearly based on other factors (the person, honesty between partners, other pathologies of the individuals involved, etc.) Cathy writes on that a bit here
      (http://thoughtsonliberty.com/give-casual-sex-a-chance).

      When you advocate for shaming someone, usually you’ve already gone through the critiquing round and have fairly solidified (with a good amount of consensus) that what the person is doing is wrong. Shaming someone for things like murder, cheating on their partner, lying, etc. could be considered appropriate (though ultimately ineffective to your aim of getting them to behave differently) because all those actions clearly harm someone. This is not true of promiscuity or dancing.

      2. I have yet to see a response that shames you, but there are many that
      critique your post. There’s a difference there. The closest I have seen is in
      my own post when I said, “Our movement is filled with people like Miller, and that’s the real problem here.“ I think whether or not that is properly called shaming is debatable, but I’ll concede that it is for the purpose of making a better argument. Even if I am shaming you, it is more appropriate to shame you for slut shaming than it is for you to slut shame in the first place. Slut shaming keeps people from actively pursuing a normal life. It empowers sexual abusers (http://thoughtsonliberty.com/how-slut-shaming-empowers-sexual-abusers) and contributes to the “she really wanted it” aspect of rape culture. A culture of slut shaming actually perpetuates more harm than a culture of sexual promiscuity. And thus it makes more sense to shame someone who slut shames than it does to shame someone who is a slut in the first place.

      A person may “feel free to ignore” what you say,
      but the systemic consequences of what you are advocating cannot be ignored.

      • James Miller

        Quick reply now, will perhaps go in depth later. Just want to point out a few things.

        You say: “Critique requires thought, anargument, an explanation for why what someone has done or said is wrong.”

        Was my article not an argument against promiscuous behavior as it undermines reasoned autonomy? You may not agree, but I at least attempt to make the case.

        “Critique is most often put at someone’s actions, not someone’s person. Shaming is aimed at someone’s person, that they are a bad person for their action or their thoughts.”

        I can’t make sense of this. First you say critiques are aimed at someone’s actions – okay. Then you say shaming is aimed at someone’s person and “for their action.” But you insist critiquing and shaming remain separate.

        Maybe I am wrong, but to engage in promiscuous behavior seems to require some action. One has to initiate the act of consensual intercourse, after all. Thus, the action of “slut-shaming” – which is aimed at a specific behavior – by your very definition constitutes a critique, which is totally permissible in your view.

        Like I said, more of a response may come.

        • Gonna respond to both of your comments in one because there are already too many threads going on here. lol

          “Was my article not an argument against promiscuous behavior as it undermines reasoned autonomy? You may not agree, but I at least attempt to make the case.”

          I am having a hard time finding your piece to look over it again, but I don’t think you did. Even if you did attempt to make an argument for why such things are bad, I also stated that you need a general consensus that such things are both bad for the individual and causes harm to other people before shaming is even an option on the table. Then, there is the question of efficacy of that approach, which is also pretty darn debatable, IMO.

          “I can’t make sense of this. First you say critiques are aimed at someone’s actions – okay. Then you say shaming is aimed at someone’s person and “for their action.” But you insist critiquing and shaming remain separate.”

          Sure. It’s the difference between “That thing you did was bad” and “you are a bad person.” See also, the difference between guilt vs. shame http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/02/01/guilt-vs-shame-why-definitions-matter/

          “First, the non-aggression principle is the foremost libertarian ethic – not just fairly common. But more importantly, shaming/critique (remember: they are virtually the same by your own definition) is not “harming” anyone. It might make you feel bad, but it does not constitute
          aggression against your person.”

          1. I actually wasn’t talking about the non-aggression principle, I was talking about the no-harm principle. There has been a LOT of debate in the libertarian community these days about both, actually, such that I do not think it is safe or fair to claim that it is the foremost libertarian ethic for all libertarians.

          2. I gave some ways in which slut shaming systemically harms people. I’d encourage you to look at the articles I linked you to.

          • James Miller

            If you would like to peruse my article again, you can read it here: http://millergd.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-slut-shame.html

            Once again, there are many gaps in logic in your rebuttal.

            First, you link libertarians to the “no-harm” principle. Harm is a very encompassing term. If I were to choose to shop at Walmart over Kmart, do I not harm the latter with a loss of profit? What if the latter were to go out of business without my patronage – does that cause psychological harm? If you are going to oppose harm, you must oppose the free choices of individuals as every action results in foregone opportunities that could cause harm.

            Second, then there is this statement:

            “I also stated that you need a general consensus that such things are both bad for the individual and causes harm to other people before shaming is even an option on the table.”

            I do not need a general consensus to make my own reasoned determination of things. I fully admit in my piece that for once I was on the same side as the general public, but that is not a necessary requirement for argument.

            What’s funny is that by your definition, slut-shaming Miley is perfectly fine as it seemed a majority of the public found her “performance” distasteful. You could see it on the faces of the crowd. So there was a consensus that Miley made a fool out of herself, and by your own logic, shaming is then perfectly fine.

          • I am not saying that the harm principle is perfect, just that it is often invoked by libertarians and is a dominant part of the libertarian ethic, and, even with its problems, is very useful to us (just like the NAP is). I anchored my argument against shaming of non-aggressive actions to the harm principle.

            “I do not need a general consensus to make my own reasoned determination of things.”

            Sure, that’s fair. My second iteration of that piece of my argument was badly worded. What I was just trying to say was that I think that in order to shame someone—basically, in order to make someone feel like *they are a bad person*, there *ought* to be a widely accepted consensus that the behavior is both harmful to the individual and harmful to other people. Such a consensus is not even close to happening with promiscuous behavior.

            I think there is a lot to criticize of Miley’s performance. It was poorly choreographed, her vocals were abysmal, and her costuming and makeup choices did not look good on her. There have been other comments talking about the appropriation of twerking that she did (and I don’t have a strong opinion on that, really). It was a poor performance for a lot of reasons, and that might be one of the various reasons why people in the audience reacted poorly to it.

            But your piece goes beyond critiquing her performance to the shaming of promiscuous people in general. There’s a wide gap between those things. The former is acceptable, I do not think the latter should be.

          • Andrea Castillo

            “What I was just trying to say was that I think that in order to shame someone—basically, in order to make someone feel like *they are a bad person*, there *ought* to be a widely accepted consensus that the behavior is both harmful to the individual and harmful to other people.”

            Many historical abolitionists in the US would not meet your criteria for “proper shaming,” then. I look forward to your article teasing out these implications with as much gusto as you did with Miller’s article!

            “Such a consensus is not even close to happening with promiscuous behavior.”

            ORLY? Where can I find the meeting minutes for the last vote? I don’t think this is a wise road for you to go down.

            “But your piece goes beyond critiquing her performance to the shaming of promiscuous people in general.”

            Semantics. You are not refuting the central point. This is a red herring.

            “The former is acceptable, I do not think the latter should be.”

            This is really your only argument. You think some kinds of shaming are ok, but you do not think other kinds of shaming are ok.

            This is a totally legitimate point to make. Let’s talk about that. Convince me that you’re right. But don’t pretend that you’re not advocating a double standard by hiding behind semantics, appeals to authority, and false analogies.

            We live in a dynamic world. There is no need for you to singularly engineer a test of moral standards. They might even emerge in the direction you desire if you spend less time assassinating the reputations of those who disagree with you. Invest more time in sharpening your own points!

          • James Miller

            “This is really your only argument. You think some kinds of shaming are ok, but you do not think other kinds of shaming are ok.

            This is a totally legitimate point to make. Let’s talk about that. Convince me that you’re right. But don’t pretend that you’re not advocating a double standard by hiding behind semantics, appeals to authority, and false analogies.”

            -This 10000X This debate has gotten tiresome and Andrea’s wonderful summing up of everything wrong with Gina’s argument pretty much ends it.

          • Matthew Tanous

            “I also stated that you need a general consensus that such things are both bad for the individual and causes harm to other people before shaming is even an option on the table.”

            Calling someone a slut only “shames” them because of a “general consensus that such things are both bad for the individual and causes harm to other people”. Whether you agree with why people believe that is irrelevant. If they did not, calling someone a slut would not be shameful in the least – almost no one would care.

      • James Miller

        Another contradiction in your comment:

        “Critique of sluts often fails under scrutiny and the application of a fairly common libertarian ethic (ie, that people should be free to do what they want so long as they are not harming anyone else).”

        First, the non-aggression principle is the foremost libertarian ethic – not just fairly common. But more importantly, shaming/critique (remember: they are virtually the same by your own definition) is not “harming” anyone. It might make you feel bad, but it does not constitute aggression against your person.

        So therefore, using your own logic, it does not fail the libertarian ethic. In fact, it champions the very peaceful social relations that libertarians follow.

      • Matthew Tanous

        Stop virgin shaming! We need maleism!

        Same thing. I know far fewer women that were ridiculed for being “sluts” in high school or college than the other way around – for both men and women. Why is it that we defend a woman’s right to be a “slut” against “shaming”, but not her (or his) right to remain abstinent until marriage.

        I should note that “shaming” is utterly meaningless unless one is already ashamed of their behavior or afraid of being ostracized for it. It’s only telling the truth, albeit in a derogatory manner. If people do not view being promiscuous as “bad”, it is irrelevant. I’d much rather have this sort of thing happen – “virgin shaming” when I was in school allowed me to find people actually worth associating myself with, and avoid those that were unable to accept my choices about my life. No harm was done because I didn’t view myself as a victim, or dependent on what others thought of me. The problem is not “slut shaming”, but low self-esteem (itself a common rationale for promiscuity….).

  • James Miller

    Also, one more comment. Gina (and Cathy if you are reading), will you denounce this virgin-shaming?

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-More-Skeptical-than-The-Skeptical-Libertarian-Libertarian/476613869072977?idG6613869072977&sk=photos_stream

    I was informed that Cathy “liked” a Facebook page named “Virgin-shaming,” which had an old picture of me, that was subsequently taken down.

    So, if I understand correctly, it is okay to shame some for sexual life choices and not others?

    • anna

      I’m guessing that by their incredibly misguided way of thinking that they cannot be oppressing you because they are the ones being oppressed in the first place (even though they are not). Libertarians are guilty of this all the time, they love calling out the hypocrisy of others but rarely realize when they are guilty of it. Disagree with the article all you want but don’t practice what you are so infuriated by afterwards.

    • Keith Kelso

      Are you seriously going to attack other people then cry wounded dove when some trollfile mocks you for it? Have some personal integrity ffs.

      • Madfoot713

        No he’s asking for consistency. If you believe it’s wrong to shame someone for their sex life then turn around and do the same thing, you’re being a hypocrite. It’s like when anti-gay politicians get outed as being gay and some people make homophobic jokes about them (not just criticizing their hypocrisy, but going “oh wow politician x sucks a lot of dick haha”).

    • I never have, nor will you ever see me “virgin shame.” I began having sex much later in life than many of my peers, and I understand what it’s like to feel out of place as a person who chooses to be abstinent in a society that (at least on one hand) seems to demand that you be sexual. I have never spoken about virgins, and, should I see anything that I think is virgin shaming, I would certainly speak out against it.

      As for the images you shared, I’m not quite clear on why they are virgin shaming, per se. They seem to be memes making fun of slut shamers (somewhat ineffectively, cause I don’t really get them…). I’m un familiar with the meme they’re using, so maybe it’s in that? I dunno.

      In general, it’s been my observation that women (and, all people, but women in particular in some areas) get extra crap for not toeing the line of what society expects of them. People who refuse to have sex are seen as strange, people who have too much sex are deviants, people who refuse to partake in drugs or alcohol (as I do) also is under lots of scrutiny. All of this is silly nonsense and things I think people shouldn’t do. No one should shame others for voluntary, non-harmful life choices. More on that in another place on this thread.

      • Andrea Castillo

        “In general, it’s been my observation that women (and, all people, but women in particular in some areas) get extra crap for not toeing the line of what society expects of them.”

        In general, it’s been my observation that people attribute their failures to their environments but their successes to their characters. They tend to reverse the diagnosis when judging others.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_bias

        • That doesn’t even make sense in this context, Andrea. I’m talking about criticism for someone’s actions, not how people assess failures. I’m not saying, in that instance, that slut shaming causes people to not be successful, but rather that women disproportionately get shit (like slut shaming) for things that are outside the norm of what people think they should do. Which, as I said, includes ascetic behaviors and hedonistic ones.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Ok, I’ll spell it out for you:

            “I’m saying…that women disproportionately get shit (like slut shaming) for things that are outside the norm of what people think they should do.”

            As women, we are more sensitive to perceived environmental effects on women, like cultural attitudes. The actor-observer bias therefore primes our experiences to give more weight to these factors.

            It is entirely possible that women are shamed for more behaviors than men. But by merely appealing to your filtered experience to make your point, you run the risk of overstating this effect. Careful thinking is important.

          • Thanks for the clarification. I feel like this is going to delve into the old (and our old) nature vs. nurture/nature vs. social conditioning argument that we have hacked out many-a-time before, so I’ll duck out at this point, but I do appreciate you clarifying that, as your first statement didn’t seem to relate at all.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Being cognizant of common cognitive errors has nothing to do with “nature vs. nurture/nature vs. social conditioning.” Not sure why you think that. But I do hope that you remember to separate your biases from your analyses of social phenomena to the best of your ability!

          • I was mostly referring to this:

            “As women, we are more sensitive to perceived environmental effects on
            women, like cultural attitudes. The actor-observer bias therefore primes
            our experiences to give more weight to these factors.”

            Had it in my head to debate whether that tendency was socially constructed or inherent, and, thus, creating a giant feedback loop of problems but opted against it.

          • Andrea Castillo

            The source is irrelevant. However you believe your identity is constructed, we filter our experiences through our identities and sometimes make common cognitive errors because of it.

            Your initial reaction is interesting. Maybe time to diversify your mental models?

  • Derek Ellerman

    Regardless of one’s view on Miller’s opinion, this “response” is a non-response. It doesn’t address anything that was actually argued, but rather deliberately mis-states Miller’s position.

    Racism? What? There is literally not even one passage that could be remotely construed as “racist” by a sane individual.

    Secondly, the misconstrued passage about Jesus precisely enshrines the enraging hypocrisy of the response to Miller’s piece.

    What Miller is doing, whether you agree with him or not, is using noncoercive persuasion and societal pressure to advocate for his view. What Luttrell is doing is using noncoercive persuasion and societal pressure to wail about how someone else is using precisely the same strategy, but advocating a view they are displeased with.

    Yet Miller’s view is described as “oppressive.” He must be silenced you see.

    Because liberty apparently means being the thought police.

    The irony and the hypocrisy of the responses to his piece are simply too great to ignore. Disagree with his view. But stop pretending like only people with your worldview are allowed to speak on issues they care about.

    • James Miller

      I would also like to point out that had any of my detractors bothered to *click* on the hyperlink contained in this line: “While I am no fan of government discrimination based on color,” they would have been led to a piece I did describing why racial discrimination is wrong in regards to individualism.

      But now somehow I am a racist, as I cited a well-known racist despite my saying his goal was not just. You know, it’s actually possible to quote someone and not accept their ideology.

    • Erin

      So, he’s allowed to use noncoercive persuasion to further his world view, but any people who “misogynist shame” him and others MUST be advocating forcefully silencing him? If he can attempt to curb behavior (behavior that has nothing to do with him, btw) by denouncing someone without being accused of “policing”, then that same standard must be applied to all the people who call him out on his bigotry. Otherwise, um, how did you put it? “The irony and the hypocrisy…[is] simply too great to ignore.”

      We do disagree with his view, and we’re vocal about it, but until someone on this blog advocates censoring him or otherwise forcefully silencing him, stop creating straw men arguments about thought police.

      Side Note: If the part about Jesus is misconstrued, explain how. OTherwise, you don’t give anyone a chance to debate it, and you’re doing the sophist equivalent of saying, “huh-uh; you’re wrong!”

      • Derek Ellerman

        Oh for the love.

        This is like an Abbott and Costello routine. Where did I say anyone was advocating force?

        The irony is precisely that the opponents of Miller’s article use the SAME strategy he does, but pretend that, for whatever reason, anyone who disagrees with their worldview is not allowed to speak.

        “It hurts the movement! We can’t have these voices!” and so forth.

        Par for the course in this “debate” – you accuse me of straw mans while you invent the notion that I said anyone was advocating force.

        How is the part of Jesus misconstrued? Is this happening?

        Jesus wasn’t “anti-slut shaming.” He said that the opponents of the woman couldn’t use force to make their points!

        • Erin

          “Where did I say anyone was advocating force?”

          How about comments like:

          “…anyone who disagrees with their worldview is NOT ALLOWED to speak.”

          or

          “He must be silenced you see.”

          or calling them “thought police”.

          All those clearly imply force, and while lots of people have “attacked” him (another term that keeps getting thrown around which conveniently implies force”, no one has advocated “silencing him”. The efforts we make to stop it are through education and condemnation, just like he’s doing.

          We’re not saying his behavior is forceful, anymore than he said “sluts” behave forcefully. We did say that as a philosophy, it’s wrong and damaging. If he chooses to rebut, fine, but please stop with the “they’re ATTACKING me” whine fests.

          • Derek Ellerman

            Are you tired from all the mental gymnastics?

            “If he chooses to rebut, fine, but please stop with the “they’re ATTACKING me” whine fests.”

            The hysteria surrounding his argument – again, right or wrong – is not a whine fest?

            Who’s on first?

          • Erin

            It’s a whine fest when he claims he’s being “attacked”. To my knowledge, Cathy, even though she was called out in his article, has yet to pen a rebuttal argument called, “James Miller was MEAN to me!”

            By the way, all these backhanded insults you keep trying to lob at me do little except show you have contempt for logical debate and are annoyed at the very idea that I would challenge you. I’m not tired of mental gymnastics; I’m tired of the scripted eye rolls you think are an adequate substitute for a legitimate response.

          • Derek Ellerman

            With all due respect, it is impossible, by definition, to have a logical debate with a flurry of non-sequiturs.

            The entire point here is precisely what Andrea has clearly described:

            “The problem is that Gina is anti-shaming in the behaviors that she endorses and pro-shaming in the behaviors that she opposes while claiming to be against “shaming.” This is hypocritical.”

            The whole Good For Me But Not For Thee attitude is opaque and impossible to argue with, as it is designed to be. If you insist on a double-standard, you can’t expect a clear, linear debate to follow.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Miller ended his article by saying: “The target of my disrespect is always free to ignore.”

            Gina ended her article by saying, “Our movement is filled with people like Miller, and that’s the real
            problem here. While I am happy that our community is properly
            scandalized by this piece, it’s time that those same people learned that
            this kind of behavior and thought is more common than they would like
            to admit and start making efforts to stop it.”

            See the difference?

          • Erin

            The efforts aren’t forceful though; they’re through dissent. Miller is, of course, free to ignore his detractors, but obviously his whole point in slut shaming is to “stop” said sluts’ behavior by making it increasingly socially uncomfortable for them to behave that way. Otherwise, what’s the point?

          • Andrea Castillo

            You’re not bringing any new information to this conversation. Obviously, the point of “shaming” is to affect behavior. We’re on the same page.

            The problem is that Gina is anti-shaming in the behaviors that she endorses and pro-shaming in the behaviors that she opposes while claiming to be against “shaming.” This is hypocritical.

          • Erin

            You’re applying your motivations to hers. She never said shaming is always bad. You can shame racists, or homophobes, or people who try to change the lifestyles of others simply because they don’t like them. She argues against the validity of shaming sluts specifically, just like one may argue against the shaming of gays.

          • Andrea Castillo

            “No one should shame others for voluntary, non-harmful life choices.” – Gina

      • Andrea Castillo

        I think you’re overthinking this. It’s really not difficult: Gina thinks it’s ok for her to non-coercively shame behaviors and thoughts that she finds unsavory. She does not think it is ok for Miller, who disagrees with her, to do the same.

    • Couple of things:

      1. The problematic racial undertones of Miller’s piece is more properly covered elsewhere. I linked to a piece I saw then decided to mount my own critique.

      2. Nowhere in my article do I talk about oppression, nor did I advocate that Miller be silent. I have argued the opposite of this view many times. http://thoughtsonliberty.com/if-you-care-about-ending-rape-culture-engage-with-steven-landsburg

      The closest I came to saying that Miller should be silenced is that “…it’s time that those same people learned that this kind of behavior and thought is more common than they would like to admit and start making efforts to stop it.” My point here is not necessarily that Miller and his ilk should be silenced, but that libertarians need to realize that these ideas perpetuate our movement, and they are (a) detrimental to women advancing in liberty and (b) they are ideas we need to engage with and not simply ignore.

      • Derek Ellerman

        You didn’t link to anything covering the non-existent “racism” in the piece.

        You used a “I disagree therefore racist” thought-killing cliche/dog whistle as pure ad hominem.

        As I’ve already stated, there is nothing even remotely “racist” in the piece.

        Then again, Andrea Castillo has already diagnosed the utter hypocrisy used to try to limit debate to what the Sweetie-Pie Libertarians consider acceptable thought.

        • I linked to this article here: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kateandrews/2013/09/03/editorinchief-of-mises-institute-in-canada-advocates-slut-shaming-n1690262

          Another example is here: https://www.facebook.com/AssociationofLibertarianFeminists/posts/10151543251640044

          It is dubious at best to quote George Wallace in an attempt to make an argument about anything.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Yeah, Gina, those links don’t say what you say they say.

            Not only does Miller explicitly say, “I am no fan of government discrimination based on skin color,” in his article, he links to a blog post where he discusses race and moral issues in a free society in depth. (http://mises.ca/posts/blog/racial-profiling-in-a-free-society/

            Miller brought up George Wallace to discuss the perils of institutional coercion. He contrasted that with civil self-regulation of moral behaviors, the subject of his article.

            It is dubious at best to suggest he is “racist” for pointing out the moral problems of institutionalized racism. And really dishonest.

          • Derek Ellerman

            Neither of your links proclaim that Miller is a racist nor do they explain how anything he stated is racist.

            “It is dubious at best to quote George Wallace in an attempt to make an argument about anything.”

            This is just another thought-killing cliche. It doesn’t make a point. By your logic, if George Wallace had made a statement agreeing with the concept of gravity, you would oppose it because one subset of his worldview included white supremacy.

            I have given you ample opportunity to defend your piece and state your case. After several responses, it is clear that you do not have an actual point to make, aside from character-assassination and calling people “racists.”

            You should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Andrea Castillo

        “Libertarians need to realize that these ideas…are detrimental to women advancing in liberty”

        Yo Gina. Miller’s thoughts have not been detrimental to me as a “woman advancing liberty.” Speak for yourself. Stop collectivizing female libertarians.

  • JP

    “When she’s not worrying about the fate of the free world, she is sewing, reading science fiction or fantasy, blogging, or tinkering with web and graphic design.”

    The free world would be best served with less blogging about racist & sexist fiction — and more tinkering with graphic design.

    I would also suggest a greater emphasis on sewing, but that could be misconstrued.

    ‘Cus misogyny.

  • trentemberson

    “Absent father provokes hyper-sexuality on the part of girls. Absent father provokes hyper-aggression on the part of boys. These are survival strategies for sexual selection based upon the early genetic reading of the value (or disvalue) of social cooperation in the tribe… Hyper-sexuality is simply a marker of a reproductive strategy that is based upon the shattering of the family achieved through welfare and radical feminism.” – Stefan Molyneux, “Slutwalk of Family Collapse”

  • Andrea Castillo

    I guess it doesn’t take much to “scandalize” nowadays.
    This could be read as a sign of progress to some.

    This entire discussion is misguided. On the one hand, you have a group of
    people that cannot separate the criticism of self-destructive behavior from the
    criticism of healthy self-expression. They fear that allowing criticism of
    self-destructive promiscuity will chip away at the improved social acceptance
    of non-self-destructive promiscuity. On the other hand, you have people that
    cannot separate any kind of promiscuity and condemn all equally. They cannot
    conceive that others can find fulfillment in a lifestyle that they themselves
    would abhor. The result of this sexual paternalism is they end up harming the
    reputations and welfare of those who enjoy and accept the costs of promiscuity.

    The blind sanctimony of these two groups magnifies and reinforces the
    misconstrued kaleidics of the others’. Full of derp.

    Here’s the thing: regardless of whether or not Miller falls into this second
    camp, to criticize a behavior for a perceived harm to the initiator is *not*
    the same thing as “control[ing] the behavior and sexuality of women.”
    It can, and probably does, influence sexual decisions, but to suggest that
    articulating the costs of promiscuity is the equivalent of “controlling”
    these decisions is to deny female agency. Which I think you will agree is a
    problem.

    This is, in fact, one of the main conflations that Miller was criticizing:
    “Under their narrow view of the world, to criticize another’s actions is
    one in the same as physical oppression.” This is clearly not the case.

    Miller could be totally wrong about promiscuity. Perhaps all women can indulge
    to their hearts’ contents and incur no significant social/psychological costs.
    In this case, he would be a relatively-well-intentioned, albeit clueless and
    counterproductive, paternal scold.

    What I think is more realistic is that different women have different
    thresholds for the bearing costs of promiscuity. Some women are simply more
    emotionally damaged by casual sex/promiscuity than others. I think Miller’s
    message, if not his delivery, could very well improve outcomes for this
    subgroup. The challenge lies in articulating this consideration without
    committing a fallacy of composition.

    While you or people you know may have the budget to adequately shoulder the
    costs of promiscuity, others may not. Stifling discussion by “making efforts to
    stop it” within the libertarian community does a disservice to those who harbor
    different risk preferences than you. And as a rule of thumb, it’s pretty childish to deal with the arguments of those who disagree with you by merely calling names.

    • Derek Ellerman

      THIS. SO MUCH THIS.

  • Godfrey of Bouillon

    Ferro ignoque pagani delendi sunt. Crucem sanctam subiit, et ensem sanctum subibunt.