Re: Feminists and Pseudofeminists

Funny: these same people at GC and BC who have no problem smearing everyone represented under the feminist banner without worrying about the finer distinctions are also the ones who tend to quibble endlessly over the various incarnations of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

Because both (and feminism too) imply, at least, a genealogy. Would modern feminists, both egalitarian and supremacist, identify with Harriet Mill and Emma Goldman? Yes, they would. Even though Harriet Mill and Emma Goldman would probably not agree with what the movement looks like today.

Same for liberals. Would they identify with Tocqueville and Bentham? Well yes, they would, all the way from European libertarians to American mild socialists, they would claim them back. Even though it's arguable that Tocqueville and Bentham would not claim all of them as heirs.

Same for conservatives. I consider myself a conservative because I claim Burke and de Maistre. Sure enough, the world is a different place now and some of their advice becomes dated; and yes, that means that not everyone in the modern movements would be claimed by them. But if you cannot claim this descent from classical conservatism (and I know who can't), then the ideology is not conservatism.

Same for socialists. You don't have to agree with Proudhon or Marx and Engels in methods or in final goals (although they would probably say that you have to), but if you also reject their analysis of society you are simply not a socialist.

And so on and so forth. Terms are not in isolation. They change. Terms for social movements change when their movements change because societies change. But there is always an uninterrupted line of thought between the original champions of a movement and those that have come after, even if the time and social evolution between them makes the latter even contradict conclusions of the former.