while i only speak for myself, i find the whole feminism thing (both in its past and in its present form) off-putting because it's deceitful. if it's supposed to be about gender equality, then why name it feminism and not egalitarianism or something like that?

it's off-putting to me because it stinks of gender empowerment. i see no reason to be proud (or ashamed) by the fact that i happen to be female. moreover, i question the legitimacy of any movement that uses something as arbitrary as gender to empower people.

it's one thing to study the brains of males and females, and from a medical perspective say that you notice "these" kinds of differences or "those" kinds of similarities, but to turn non-scientific gender studies into a legitimate brand of knowledge that has its own section is some book shops is ridiculous. the only thing that those non-medical studies propagate is gender stereotypes that silly people read and take seriously. those very same people then probably treat their mates according to what the book they read told them their mate was "supposed" to be like and then they complain that it didn't work out.

["...why name it feminism and not egalitarianism...?" I've asked that question, and there's a huge debate about it, but my take is it's historical coming out of the convention that makes "man" as in "family of man" the default for "human" and "him" the default pronound for people: men were the default and studies and advocacy of the "other" gender became "feminism" for the same reason studies of non-Judeo-Christian religion, but not Judeo-Christianity, was called "mysticism." That's the "other" business you hear people talking about. Anyway the name is now water under the bridge: only a small slice of the many schools of feminism wants women to be empowered *over* men... and they're not terribly popular slices within feminism either. Thanks, kermit. Now *my* concern with the old assumption that men are the "default" and feminism (writ small) is just about becoming equal to that, is that what constitutes being "men" under our current scheme isn't great shakes either. So yeah, another word might be better (and I'd be more comfortable using it) but that's where we are now. --fl]

• reply

figleaf,

I too have had a long draught of Shulamith's Kool-aid. My first drink was taken when I was but a lad of 20 years age. It was harsh, bitter and way too strong a drink for me. I had a similar reaction to my first taste of scotch. Both elixirs, when consumed, gave my senses and mind fits. Once they got into my bloodstream and changed the chemistry of my brain, well I could see the world in a much different light...and there really is no going back to the way it was before.

On the subject of your piece here on *no-sex* class, I choose to skip past a discussion of the labels that men affix to women, whether as feminists in this case or in any regard to their status as women. I will simply say that I do not think that it is not up to me to say what or who a feminist is, unless it is myself that I speak of.

Instead, I look at the net effect - classification, control and domination. I ask the following questions about men classifying feminists or women:

Why?
What is to be gained by this view?
What is really being communicated, indirectly?

You see, I fall into the camp that believes that the labeling of women/feminists is a means of control. It diminishes the woman into a thing and places a lower strata value upon her in the process. Sure, without words to label things we would not have language - that's not at issue. The issue as I see it, is the use of words to manipulate and control people - to bully them by the use of words. Words that give men the belief that they are right, because the words say so - conveniently absolving us men of responsibility in the process.

What I see here is that people are bullies because we can be. Boys, girls, men and women will all abuse power when given the chance. That chance comes easily when accountability is absent. In this example, we as men can avoid accountability for controlling women by labeling them as *no-sex feminists* or what-have-you. For, the assumption is that such a class of thing is somehow deficient and therefore our mistreatment of it or dismissal or even punishment is somehow warranted by their status as members of this group.

The truth is that what men bring to a relationship is the determining factor in what they get out of it. If the woman calls herself a feminist or woman or person is of no consequence. Some men will bring bullying, demeaning and intimidation to the relationship. They will get their sex (or likely not) by dismissing the woman, pushing her, intimidating her, labeling her and ignoring her as a person. Others will have the salt to stand beside her as himself taking responsibility for his part and listening for her as she claims her own part.

If you're looking for me, I'll be at the end of the bar with a bottle of The Dialectic of Sex, waiting for my wife to get out of the shower.

[Thanks, Arvan. --fl]

• reply

equal rights for everyone irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, faith, etc. is not the same thing as empowering women solely because they are women.

don't get me wrong, obviously i am very much for empowering people, so long as that empowerment is based on non-arbitrary characteristics, characteristics over which one has control, like intelligence.

encouraging people to be proud of something as arbitrary like their gender is silly to me. i consider it no sillier than telling people they're special because they're beautiful, since nobody has a great deal of control over what they look like anyway.

that doesn't mean that i don't think it's a good idea to have a movement that helps eradicate people's hang-ups and insecurities about their bodies and about sex in general.

when i say that i take issue with feminism, i mean the entire literary movement that has sprung since the sexual revolution that espouses "feminist" interpretations of literature and takes issues with common words like "history" by saying that it should be "herstory", etc.

all i'm saying is have all the medical studies of gender you want, but don't invent a new discipline of feminist studies if you're not willing to treat both genders to the same scrutiny. if you do, all you're really doing, in my opinion is working to cultivate new stereotypes about people based on their gender, and ironically you're supposed to be dispelling them

[Let's put it this way: I agree both genders need equal scrutiny. In fact I believe it rather passionately. It's just taken nearly 40 years of feminist studies to convince men that we're not so "normal" that studying us is pointless. I know that sounds dumb, but take it from me, that's what we've always told ourselves. So yeah, that just means we're now 40 years late to the party, and, as with my clumsy discussion of paradigms it's pretty obvious that we're barely ready for baby steps. And it's our fault, not women's. Thanks, kermit. --fl]

• reply