[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]
My copy of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Volume 6: A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Ancient Greeks to the Scholastics, edited by Fred Miller (author of Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics) and Carrie-Ann Biondi, has just arrived. 
It contains a couple of articles by me on the contributions to philosophy of law (and libertarian aspects thereof) by Xenophon, Cynics, Cyrenaics, Academics, Peripatetics, Polybius, Epicureans, and Stoics. Other entries include Michael Gagarin and Paul Woodruff on early Greek legal thought; R. F. Stalley on Socrates and Plato; Miller on near eastern legal thought, Aristotle, ancient rights theory, and early Jewish and Christian legal thought; Brad Inwood on Cicero and the Roman Stoics; Janet Coleman on Augustine; Charles Butterworth on medieval Jewish and Islamic thought; Thomas Banchich on Justinian’s Digests; John Marenbon on Abélard, the early Scholastics, and the revival of Roman law; Charles Reid on canon law; Anthony Lisska on Aquinas, Scotus, and other Scholastics; Brian Tierney on William of Ockham; and M. W. F. Stone on the Spanish Scholastics. You can buy it from Amazon, but when you see the price, you won’t. (I got mine for free.) Hope for it to show up at your friendly neighbourhood university library instead.
Today’s email also brings me the latest issue of Liberty, which contains Leland Yeager’s review of Tibor Machan’s anthology Liberty and Justice. In the following excerpt Yeager discusses a left-libertarian contribution from Jennifer McKitrick, vice-president of the Molinari Institute and Molinari Society:
Jennifer McKitrick devotes her “Liberty, Gender, and the Family” to summarizing and commenting on Susan Moller Okin’s “Justice, Gender, and the Family” (Basic Books, 1989). Okin had bewailed women’s having
heavier burdens and slighter opportunities than men because, for example, family responsibilities impede their uninterrupted pursuit of careers. McKitrick warns libertarians against merely brushing such concerns aside. She regrets that even such an early feminist as John Stuart Mill, in his “The Subjection of Women” (1989), had accepted conventional ideas about the division of labor between the sexes. Yet she also warns against Okin’s program of comprehensive governmental remedies, which might include requiring employers to grant pregnancy and childbirth leave, arrange flexible part-time working hours, provide high-quality on-site day care, and “issue two paychecks equally divided between the employee and his partner” (94). McKitrick prefers facilitating marriage contracts whereby a man and a woman can tailor the terms of their marriage to their particular circumstances and preferences. She denies that women would be at a clear disadvantage in negotiating such contracts. Her article serves as an example of how a thoughtful person can have both feminist and libertarian sympathies.
The Tarantino half, Death Proof, is thus a striking contrast with the nonstop gorefest of Rodriguez’s half, Planet Terror; this was the Rodriguez of From Dusk Till Dawn (even down to the Mexican pyramid at the end) – an endless stream of adolescent grossouts with no emotional center or connection. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; I’m not denying that the Rodriguez half was fun. It’s just what it set out to be – a parody of zombie movies – and that sort of film doesn’t necessarily need to be anything but wacky and superficial. I didn’t much care which characters lived and which died – but so what? Planet Terror is the kind of feature you’re supposed to make if you’re contributing to a project like Grindhouse; it’s in the same spirit as the fake trailers (arguably it’s one of the fake trailers). Tarantino is the one who broke the rules by making a real movie.
Death Proof also has an interesting feminist edge. What? A slasher pic that begins with the camera lingering lasciviously on women’s body parts, and goes on later in the film to graphic depictions of those bodies being brutally bludgeoned and ripped apart? How could that kind of movie have a feminist edge? Well, it does. And not merely because the surviving women turn the tables on the killer at the end – lots of slasher pics end that way, it’s a convention of the genre, and it doesn’t make those into feminist movies, to put it mildly. Now I can understand why some viewers might think the same applies to Death Proof. But what differentiates Death Proof from the typical slasher pic, to my mind, is the spirit in which it makes use of these conventions, and indeed the way it subverts those conventions in such a way as not simply to defeat but to deflate the male predator. In most slasher pics the slasher is terrifying up to the last minute, and is just barely defeated; the slasher’s stature is thus never truly undermined. The slasher pic may end on a note of relief, but rarely on a note of elated female empowerment; ’tis otherwise here. (One might even see the ending as a Randian/Tolkienian message here about the true nature of evil as “smutty and small”.) This is also a film about female solidarity (well, um, except when they leave the cheerleader girl behind – I’m not sure what to make of that scene), so I reckon it’s no coincidence that the final turning-the-tables is carried off by women working together, rather than, as in most slasher pics, either a lone woman or a man and woman together.
There are scenes that invite us to regard the two halves of Grindhouse as happening in the same universe: a number of characters from Planet Terror make cameo appearances in Death Proof (and are clearly intended to be the same people), while one of the victims in Death Proof is briefly mentioned in Planet Terror as recently deceased. (I’m also pretty sure I saw a to-do list with “Kill Bill” on it in the background of one scene, though I’ll probably have to wait for the DVD to be sure. And this is definitely a must-get DVD – a number of scenes featured in televised trailers and previews, including but not limited to the two infamous “missing reels,” turn out to have been cut from the theatrical print for reasons of length, and will presumably be available only on DVD – unless you see it in overseas release where it’s being shown as two separate films. But I digress.) Anyway, these attempts to tie the two films into the same universe just don’t matter; there’s no way you can watch the final scene of Death Proof and think “wow, and just a few days later this town was invaded by zombies.” Back before the concept of “Elseworlds,” DC Comics used to run occasional stories outside of regular continuity – stories in which Superman married Lois Lane (before he really did), or lost his powers, or whatever – and these were somewhat paradoxically called “imaginary stories,” meaning they were fictional even within the framework of the comic. Planet Terror is an imaginary story, dammit!
There seems to be a universal presumption that whichever guy turns out to be the biological father of her baby (FWIW, the DNA experts 
[H]er actual beauty … was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it, but the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors [= the Ptolemies, i.e.Greek-speaking Macedonian conquerors], scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue ….
Larry Beane’s 
1. To say that women are “completely designed around the uterus” is to reduce women, insultingly, to a biological function, and specifically an other-directed one, and to take that function as determining their destiny; it is to say that women’s function is to serve others. But an entity whose primary function is service to others is a natural slave. Calling women’s bodies “temples” and telling them that they “rule the world” does little to soften the insult. If, as I venture to suppose, women are persons, then, just as with men, a woman’s central and ruling faculty is her reason, not her uterus. In Aristotelean terms, the reproductive capacity belongs to the nutritive soul, not the rational soul, and so its operation is subordinate to the needs of reason and not vice versa.
3. While I don’t regard the Bible as an authority one way or the other on such matters, it’s perhaps worth noting that it’s not entirely clear that the “Biblical understanding of womanhood” consistently places nurturing first. When Lazarus’s sister Martha is pursuing her feminine nurturing duties, “cumbered about much serving,” and complains that her sister Mary is neglecting her household chores by pursuing religious studies with Jesus instead, Jesus famously takes Mary’s side. (Luke 10: 39-42) One could read this as a vindication of a woman’s choice to reject homemaking in favour of some other vocation.