Aren't you supporting Totalitarianism?

One annoying fact about socially conservative Republicans is that they conflate Liberal Feminism with Radical Feminism. So in this thread, I am going to briefly describe the difference between the two.

Liberal Feminism

Liberal Feminists believe that the the source of women's oppression is the legal, cultural, and biological barriers to entry that deny women equality of opportunity and meritocracy. To remedy this problem, Liberal Feminists maintain that these barriers to entry must be lifted and power more equitably distributed among men and women. Traditionally, the barriers to entry Liberal Feminists focused on were mainly legal, such as women's suffrage. Since the first wave, Liberal Feminism has expanded to include biological and cultural barriers to entry. For example, Liberal Feminists view access to contraception and abortion as an essential remedy for the trade-off between family and career otherwise faced by the majority of women, which compelled them to depend on a husband for economic support.

Some Liberal Feminists further argue that, due to convention, just lifting the barriers to entry is insufficient for women's liberation. So they additionally propose that fairer representation among women is necessary, usually recommending temporary quotas in employment and higher education as a remedy.

In short, Liberal Feminists are about equal opportunity and meritocracy.

Radical Feminism

Radical Feminists believe that the source of women's oppression is based on a dyadic relationship characterized by master/slave. For example, men are expected to be strong and dominant, whereas women weak and submissive. So Radical Feminists direct much of their criticisms on porngraphy and prostitution, because they believe it objectifies women. Rather than seeing women as a whole who care about their goals, desires and personality, men see women as tools and concern themselves with their component parts (breasts, legs). To them, objectification results in an attitude that men have a right to access women's bodies for their own one-sided pleasure.

Some Radical Feminists are even more radical, insisting that the nature of heterosexuality itself entails male dominance and female submission. As Andrea Dworkin described it, intercourse involves penetrating a woman's physical barriers to puncture and occupy her body. A good number of these Radical Feminists, such as Sheila Jeffreys, also maintain that women's aesthetic standards result from men's sadistic desires. For example, men satisfy their sadistic thrills by forcing women to become anorexic in order to meet their standards of beauty. These Feminists generally suggest lesbianism as the only possible remedy. Their hatred of heterosexuality has motivated some of them to campaign against pornography and prostitution.

And that is a quick, informative summary. There are other feminist theories, but Liberal and Radical Feminism are the two most popular. Hopefully, social conservatives will one day stop conflating the two, and even better, stop funding radical feminists to do their laughably biased research in pornography and prostitution. One last tidbit, Radical Feminism is an offshoot of the now mostly dead Marxist Feminism.

A far lefty would believe, among other things:

1. Distribute free-condoms to every middle school and high school.
2. Subsidize the cost of a new home by 50+% for the poor.
3. Subsidize the cost of higher education by 100%.
4. Legalize after-birth/partial birth abortions on demand.
5. Implement higher racial quotas for higher education and employment.
6. Let unions coerce employees in to joining the union.
7. Promote Multiculturalism.
8. Become so secular that mention of "Christmas" is shunned.
9. Decriminalize drugs like LSD.
10. Grant asylum to victims of third world oppression and give them generous welfare benefits, even if they have no marketable skills.
11. Criminalize the buying of sex, but not the sale of it (Sweden), because selling sex is violence against women.

Those are extremist social positions on the left. Although some of them cross in to economic policy, they qualify as social enough.

Yeah, Republicans have purged their party of social moderates, having called them traitors. My prediction is that a temporary alliance between fiscal conservatives/social moderates and democrats will mount against them, and the Republican party will either have a backlash purge of the social conservatives or it will become overshadowed by a new conservative party that is more liberal on social issues.

People on both sides of the aisle are recognizing that the GOP has been hijacked by extremists.

Since when were politicians philosophically consistent? It's like how Republicans are for life, except after you're born.

For example. Luce Irigaray is a radical feminist who said that "E=MC2 is sexed." She's also a psychoanalyst, which has been thoroughly disproven like astrology. I mean, imagine a prestigious university having an astrology department! Normally, that would embarrass it.

1. Luce Irigaray
2. Judith Butler
3. Sheila Jeffreys
4. Slavoj Zizek
5. Homi Bhabha
6. Jacques Derrida
7. Jacques Lacan

People like this demonstrate the importance of regulating academia. Obscurantists and lunatics should not be allowed tenure at prestigious academic universities, nor permitted to corrupt the youth with their confused gibberish.

Thoughts?

lolz at retiring at 50.

The problem has to do with degree inflation. When college attendance is so high that at least 45% of students drop out, then prices rise because demand outstrips supply. Second thing that happens is that the quality of education and the value of a degree drops. Then having a degree becomes a requirement for entry-level positions that are irrelevant for that position. The result is that the cost of education becomes a barrier to entry for simple employment.

The solution: If you don't score in the 80th percentile on either the ACT or SAT, then you aren't receiving financial aid. Seriously, that would fix a lot of problems.

The biggest counterfeiter is the Federal Reserve. Lets start with them.

George Bush gave direct payouts to his supporters, such as the Catholic Church and Radical Feminists such as Donna Hughes and Melissa Farley.

> Mace wrote:

> Justinian. If you do not believe in a G-d and I do not then my Xian friend argues to me that I cannot have morals. However what are morals? Morals are a sense of right and wrong. You don't need a G-d to conclude that murder and theft are wrong. The logic being simple: I do not wish to be murdered. I do not wish to have my property taken from me without my consent. Therefore I will assume others do not wish these things either.

Jumping naked into a sea (at night?) with only friends/colleagues around is neither morally right or wrong.>

I actually agree with your premises, but I disagree with your conclusion. Right and wrong refer to a vague thing that transcends our social institutions and the world we experience. An essential piece of morality is that it is somehow above man-made law and social convention. In contrast, I'm saying there is nothing beyond man-made law and social convention, and therefore there is no morality.

So what stops us from generally killing others? Practical considerations are certainly part of it, but it is not a sense of right or wrong. What we call a conscience is actually our empathy, the pain we feel when we cause suffering to others. Our empathy module evolved because it's essential for the sophisticated cooperation our species does, which helped our ancestors have more babies.