Maybe I didn't express myself well, but I was criticizing the idea that libertarians are conservatives, which I think is false in a general sense and misleading even in the US. Jonathan Haidt's model of morality clearly distinguish between the two positions and the modern US politics also tell them apart pretty clearly (the libertarians have their own party).Service Dog wrote:Kirbmarc failed at reading-comprehension & thought I said paleo/libertarian conservatives dominate the american political landscape & bible-thumper creationists don't-exist. You inhaled that brainfart from Kirbmarc, not me. :think: I am scattering my reply with smilies, to catch bystanders' eyes, so a crowd may gather to point and laugh at you.
Libertarians are about freedoms and rights, conservatives are about traditions. In the US freedoms and rights are associated with "tradition" only incidentally, and just because the US started as a liberal democracy (the first one in the world, actually).
"Paleoconservatives" don't believe in the bible as the only source of morality per se but in the social role of the bible and of the "civic bible" which is the US constitution. People like Michael Oakeshott value religious tradition as "a source of rights and freedoms" and are "skeptical of reason" without understanding that legal rights and freedom which are the bases of the US constitution weren't a product of religion or tradition, but of the Enlightenment, of "reason".
There's a widespread myth in the American paleo-conservative circles that "freedom is the tradition of white (Anglo-Saxon) people and of christianity", which is a misleading reading of history based on the erasure of the anti-organized religion (and pro-deist) beliefs of many of the US founding fathers and of the truly revolutionary nature of the Scientific Revolution and of the First Industrial Revolution. And there's also a fetishization of the US constitution, which was a great step forward, especially for its times, but not the last and final word on the development of liberal democracy.
I think that US libertarians interested in civil rights should abandon the myths of tradition and the Constitution as sacred and inviolable, and accept that some adjustments to traditions must be made not to reject, but to enhance freedoms. After all the original US constitution had nothing about prohibiting slavery, that came much later. Nothing says that the Constitution isn't amendable in other ways, even if you're rightly skeptical and critical of any amendment. The SJWs reject everything about the constitution because "it was written by slave owners!1!!1!11" so I can understand defending it against their nihilistic and anti-historical babbling, but while a good document the constitution isn't perfect.
The real source of libertarianism was reason (John Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc.) not tradition. Reasonable discussion of new data and arguments, not the defense of tradition, not even of US constitutional tradition, was what started the theoretical progress in terms of gay rights or women's rights or black people's rights (the practical progress was due a series of wars, cultural or otherwise). The problem with SJWs is that they've rejected reason in favor of "narratives" and "lived experiences", not that they've rejected traditions.
"Feminism" is an empty word. It means everything and nothing, just like "humanism". You're talking about marxist feminism here, which was developed after Marx. Fights for women's rights on liberal bases existed before Marx, and didn't venerate apex strongmen. Olympe De Gouges wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791 (27 years before Marx was even born), and it was based on liberal values. Libertarian feminism (yes, it exists) descends from the pre-Marx attempts for women's rights and isn't about putting women on a pedestal as "poor oppressed eternal victims of the Patriarchy" or defending chivalry, just about recognizing women as humans with equal rights and equal responsibilities.Chicava, Karen Straughan, and myself say your stairstep model is insufficient. Instead, each step is a man-- and on it is a little pedestal-- a cloistered tower where he must chivalrously defend the white woman-- ahead of his own narrow life & liberty. Feminism replicates the chivalry model of traditionalism.... feminism doesn't deviate from religion, traditionalism, or garden-variety conservatism... they all venerate the apex strongman who protects/infantilizes women&children & Others fellow-men with xenophobic suspicion.
Modern western societies don't need libertarian feminism in order to progress, but traditional societies do if they want to progress towards liberal democracies, because libertarian feminism part of the whole package of liberal democracy. What we don't need is marxism and marxist feminism, which has now declared itself "the one and true feminism" (tm) just like salafis have declared themselves "the one and true muslims" (tm).
There was. It was before the birth of Marx, as I've written above.There was never a golden-age of feminism pre-dating that ahistorical nonsense.