Statements of feminist ideology: are they incoherent crap even their writers cannot explain or justify?

“Sex-positive” feminism is doing the patriarchy’s work for it
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchys-work-it
I really have no idea what "Glosswitch" is saying. What does she actually want women to do? Carry on screwing around being fornicating sluts but more thoughtfully?  If you asked her would she explain? Can she? http://glosswatch.com/contact/ Her Twitter account seems to have gone. Is that a sign of a nervous breakdown?

Janet Radcliffe Richards: Is this woman more dangerous than Jihadettes who join ISIS with her dangerous dysgenic proposals? (Or is Dame Jenni Murray of BBC Woman's Hour even more dangerous cos she squats on the airwaves like a big fat spider on her web?) You can tell Richards must have been a looker when she was young. Was that how she got to where she has?

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012
What are the appropriate aims of feminism?

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012_1

"Patriarchal systems that regulate women’s sexuality, then, emerge because men want to correct the imbalance – ensure that a given child is theirs by imposing harsh punishments on women who sleep with anyone but their husband.  But the non-arbitrariness principle can show us how those systems, despite the initial power imbalance that favoured women, are unjustified.  In the first place, the punitive system arbitrarily assumes it is morally problematic for women to have children without being under the auspices of men.  And, moreover, it enforces the norm of monogamy by arbitrarily punishing women much more than men; chastity norms and laws would be significantly less objectionable if men were sanctioned as much as women."

If human sexuality is not regulated, your society will turn into Pussywhipped Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. The demand for slut sex will always exist, so it would be practical to limit the supply of it, through slut-shaming. Also, men don't get pregnant so even if you punished men and women equally for the same offence of having had extramarital sex, for all sorts of inevitable biological reasons, men will find it easier to avoid the consequences while women, for all sorts of inevitable biological reasons, are the ones always left holding the baby. If you cannot legislate against the existence of the demand for no-strings sex, you can take steps to discourage the suppliers and facilitators of slut sex, through the policy of slut-shaming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

Also, if you shame the slut and condemn her to a life worse than death for getting knocked up and keeping the baby, you stop other women from following in her slutty footsteps. What I propose is lashing SSMs 100 times per bastard. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

If you punish men trapped into a kind of forced marriage by chasing them through the Child Support Agency, you are in fact validating the slut's lifestyle choice to have a baby as a single parent, and she will continue to make irrational and irresponsible reproductive choices at the expense of the taxpayer and continue to produce her variously-fathered feral bastards who grow up to be NEETs and sluts, like mother like daughter, and the number of social parasites will grow until they overwhelm the productive sections of society until they themselves will eventually be reduced to feeding on each other like cannibals ...

Punishing the slut is dealing with the problem at source, and this is in harmony with the principle of prevention being better than cure.

Pretending that a man who sired a bastard with a slut wanted to marry her rather than just pump and dump her is a legal fiction, and desecrates the institution of marriage. Of course, women like Richards would trample all over marriage with their stiletto heels if it ever got in their way, though, interestingly, she is still married to the philosopher Derek Parfit.

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012_2

"Radcliffe Richards argues that Fitz-James Stephen’s position (that women are obviously mentally and physically inferior to men in a manner which should preclude them from various political, legal economic tasks) was based an understanding of the world as a harmonious whole with a pre-existing moral order, a view which draws on both Judaic and Aristotelian traditions."

Are women in general also MORALLY inferior? If they are not, how can the difference between 83% of female MPs voting for gay marriage compared to only 48% of male MPs voting for gay marriage be explained?  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012_3

"The potential finding that there are systematic differences between groups of people (like men vs. women) does not necessarily mean that we must not give them equal rights and opportunities."

I wonder if this woman would agree with that the following are indeed feminist principles.

The principles of feminism:

1. Men can have extramarital sex without getting pregnant.
2. Because men can have extramarital sex without getting pregnant, it is OK for men to have extramarital sex.
3. Women must be treated the same as men.
4. Women must be treated the same as men even if they are the ones who get pregnant after having extramarital sex.

Feminism is antithetical to libertarianism because its survival depends on totalitarian thought-crime legislation, ie The Equality Act 2010.  

This is of course what that moral coward Nigel Farage has already said he dare not touch. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people

He is now focusing on political gimmickry instead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27973093

Why no male politician in Pussywhipped Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland will fight feminism

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/feminazi-labour-mp-jane-basham-has.html

Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of Oxford.
Nice looking bloke. I bet he is a real hit with the feminist philosophers of Oxford who run the intellectual void that is academic philosophy. 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/may/03/highereducation.medicalscience

"Julian Savulescu is a philosopher with the courage and unique expertise required to face up to them. His high international standing, and the generosity of the Uehiro Foundation, will make Oxford a world centre for the advancement of applied ethics."

The Uehiro chair of applied ethics is a new post funded by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education (UFEE), a Japanese charitable fund that encourages research and public discussion about ethics and education and the inter-relationship between them.

I wonder if the Japanese are aware of how pernicious dysgenic and toxic feminism is in the West and whether they want to fund its propagation. Perhaps they should be told in no uncertain terms what Janet Radcliffe Richards is up to. Surely they don't want Japan, which already has enough problems of its own, to be become like Pussywhipped Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115512850561
Why is homosexuality immoral? It is exactly the same as heterosexuality as the two are based on love. Besides, you do not need hereto intercourse to have children, you can use IVF, AI or surrogacy. Get real, your homophobic bigot!

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115513421185
Why would you ban surrogacy and IVF? Any technological advance that can make infertile people have children is eugenic. If technology means that gay couples can conceive in the future, we must support gay marriage too.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115513560449
Why can't gays and lesbians have children? You do not need to have sex with the opposite gender to breed thanks to AI, IVF or surrogacy.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115513785473
As a bioethicist, I do indeed know the meaning of 'eugenic'. The idea that those who cannot naturally conceive but can through biomedical intervention would have genetically inferior offspring is arrant nonsense. These tech advances exist for precisely the opposite purpose.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115515624321
What proof is there that children born via AI, IVF and surrogacy to gays and lesbians do badly in life?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516222081
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516330113
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516316545
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516355969
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516365953
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516490881
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516430465

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516046977
"There is no way you can prove that the offspring of these LGBT parents are equal or better than the offspring of married couples." - Untrue. There are plenty of examples of research into this very subject.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516004481
"What proof is there that they don't do badly with their weird genetic mix and their weird family life?" - They don't have a weird genetic mix. There are plenty of sociological and psychological studies confirming that LGBTs' children do as well as otherwise.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516084865
"that is why the whole process is dysgenic and a total waste of time, energy and money." - Untrue. Anything that can transcend natural, genetic boundaries with good result, e.g. pregnancy for the infertile, is by definition eugenic.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-are-gay-parents-better-than-straight-parents-67636/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/06/gay-marriage