McElroy vs Long
comments powered by Disqus
Roderick T. Long - 1/15/2005
If you mean "political" in the Oppenheimerian sense of coercive force, then of course I agree. But in the sense of "political" that Charles and I set out in our paper (see the section on the "authoritarian theory of politics"), then a "political" solution is *precisely* what I think is needed.
M.D. Fulwiler - 1/15/2005
Certain forms of discrimination against women ~may~ be a "social problem" in some sense, but as long as there is no coercion involved there is no valid political "solution."
I consider most religion to be a "problem" (say did anyone see the Paul Johnson column where he asserts that God killed all those tsunami victims?) and hate the homophobia that often springs from it, but there are no legitimate political means at my disposal to deal with it, as long as the religionists are peaceful.
Roderick T. Long - 1/14/2005
The question is whether class-analysis feminism has to be collectivist feminism. Since I'm a class-analysis feminist but not a collectivist feminist, I'm inclined to answer no.
Incidentally I'm in complete agreement with McKitrick's paper. McKitrick was *agreeing* with Okin's account of the systematic ways in which women are disadvantaged, but *disagreeing* with Okin's governmental solution. The agreement fits in with class analysis, the disagreement fits in with individualism.
Aeon J. Skoble - 1/14/2005
It's a main reason why _individualist_ or liberty-oriented feminism is complemetary with libertarianism, but not why class-analysis (i.e., collectivist) feminisim or socialist feminism is. I took that to be the well-documented conclusion of McKitrick's paper (at the same symposium at which yours was presented).
Roderick T. Long - 1/14/2005
Well, but one of the claims Charles and I were defending in our paper is that something doesn't have to be "expressed through coercive tactics and legislation" to become "a true societal problem." Though coercive tactics and legislation certainly make societal problems *worse*. Feminists tend to have a keener appreciation of the first fact than of the second; libertarians, vice versa. That's one of the main reasons for conflict between them -- though I also think it's the main reason that libertarianism and feminism are ultimately complementary rather than contradictory.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- One of the last remaining Nazis goes on trial in Germany
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges
- English professor uses literature to help cure historical amnesia
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't