"entitlements of their sex"

Isnt this the fundamental problem of sexism?

Such a notion seems at odds with the values of equality. This may be causing the reticence.

A way needs to be found that includes both sexes and recognisies that we are all subject to the follies of conditioning for gender roles. The sentiments of victimology and projected guilt need to be dropped. They're pretty addictive emotions, so l cannot see it happening anytime soon, not when important branding issues loom large. Navel gazing gets redundant after a while and things have to get done, like figuring out a way to make gender politics gender nuetral in its focus and agenda.

There's a huge amount of difficult work to be done to reclaim this thing. Political movements tend to get hijacked by vested interests and over time disenfranchise the constinuency in whose name they claim to act. It gets reduced to a sea of cliched and stereotypical memes and politcally correct self-censorship. It can take decades to undo that sort of nonsense.

"Labels do matter. They are statements as much as descriptors. They are powerful, especially when we need to articulate our collective concerns and voice our demands."

Feminist, communist, socialist, democrat, liberal, anarchist, christian,

"...one we wouldn't dare ask any other social group or political movement that has been so vilified and misrepresented."

Feminist, post-modernist, traditionalist, materialist, nihilist, rationalist, theist

"Without such a label to pin these sentiments on you're left with a jumble of disconnected ideas and issues floating about in the ether, each one easily picked off and forgotten."

Feminist, Islamist, positivist, Marxist, Maoist, existentialist...

Enough already.

"In the act of calling ourselves feminists* we are expressing solidarity (not necessarily agreement) with others who share our core values."

* Substitute any of the 'ists' above and assess the quality of the argument being run in the article. Labels are dangerous and always need to be unpacked for the real meaning - and that's not an essentialist talking, just a realist.

I’m disappointed.

Runner, Col Rouge, Usual Suspect, Cornflower and trade215 have done their dependably tedious spleen-vents against the femomenace.

(Thanks, guys. You never let us down. Eternal vigilance and all that.)

But we’re still waiting for HRS, Steel and Antiseptic …

Come in, spinners! A little slow off the mark, aren’t you?

...

Oh ... and note to editor. Would it be too much trouble to ask for an article or two that puts the Mens Movement under the microscope for a change? It, too, has its agenda.

If you don't know of anyone who might oblige, try one of the above. I'm quite sure they've had some experience on that score.

Or, failing that, try one of the hundreds of MM websites in existence - many of which masquerade as feminist sites (the pretty purple is always a dead giveaway) in order to attract young women, while taking up most of their web space arguing that young women are not attracted to feminism anymore.

I have two teenage daughters - both of them disassociate themselves from the label feminist. As a person born in the 60s,at university during the most vocal of the feminist years (and yes sometimes radical and OTT), I found this attitude a bit perplexing at first. It is true that feminist has become a dirty word for some and is associated with the more radical elements which has tainted some of the purity of those earlier goals.

The issue for young people is relevance. They were born in a time where women have equal access to opportunity, education, wages and more financial independence. The survival of any revolutionary movement relies on a perception of inequality or oppression. A population cannot be mobilised when there is nothing to rage against or when the goals have been achieved.

I faced some criticism when I chose to stay home full-time for a period of time to raise my children. I sometimes think we need a motherhood or parenthood revolution. :)

In more modern times we should endeavour to be more inclusive and look at equity and fairness in a broader social sense which would include men, women and children. Or culture, race and religion.

We need a new 'ism' that is all encompassing.

This does not mean that we cannot acknowledge the good that was achieved but we should also acknowedge a few truths as well. To some extent feminism failed in that it created an environment where women believed they had to behave and act like men to compete in the same market. Perhaps this was inevitable. Real success would have included raising the profile of some of the more accepted feminine traits as worthy characteristics in a work environment. And to raise the profile of motherhood rather than denigrate it. Perhaps this was also inevitable for men to take women seriously - who knows.

I believe the workforce has taken on some of those more traditionally recognised femine traits (compassion, kindness, consultative) but it did not happen because of the feminist movement but more from an awareness of humanitarianism.

Feminism presents a radical challenge to the entire patriarchal "order" of Western "culture".

It is about a re-integration of the feminine principle into the collective consciousness, and more importantly bodies, of Western "culture".

The Pattern that IS Woman or Shakti has traditionally been associated with the body and all of its processes including the capacity to be sensuously related to everything---the culture of the Pleasure Dome

Woman has also by extension been a metaphor for the manifest world altogether.

Woman is thus THE WORLD altogether.

Patriarchal "culture" has always been at war with this Pattern that IS Woman

The war of "spirit" vs "flesh"

"Spirit" being the male principle and "flesh" being everything to do with Woman and incarnate happiness.

Woman (or the femine altogether)is also traditionally associated with the left side of the body, and all the cultural expressions that extend from the left side. The patterns that connect, feeling association, nurture. The feminine word Sophia means WISDOM

Man (or the masculine altogether) is traditionally associated with the right side of the body and expansion into the world. Even murderously so if not tempered by the Pleasure Dome Principle.

The Taliban are exemplars of this murderous psychosis.

The prejudice against anything to do with the culture of the left side (Woman or Shakti) runs hell deep.

The Latin word for left means sinister---not to be trusted, unpredictable, uncontrollable.

What caused the not so long ago hysteria that caused the mass witch burnings?

The totally irrational prejudice against women being "priests" in the "catholic" church.

Why would any sane woman want to be a "priest" in a church which is at war with what she IS at the fundamental depth of her being?

The completely irrational prejudice against the "left" altogether

When feminism began to emerge it emerged from a "culture" that had long ago suppressed and mutilated Woman.

How could feminism do anything but reflect and be infected by the psychosis that it was emerging from?

The psychotic patriarchal fathers did everything they could to suppress this emergence, including belittling it and playing up the inevitable abberations that occurred.

Feminist is no more a dirty word than suffragette. We no longer refer to women struggling for equality as suffragettes, so perhaps it is time for a change.

And then, I read someone, I think it was Kreacher (thanks Bugsy) who makes an important word a very nasty one indeed: FEMINAZI

When I hear that word I square my shoulders, stand tall and remind myself how I am proud of what so many good women and men have done towards a fairer, humanitarian world and I am, therefore, IRREPRESSIBLE. You can call me names but that can never change who I am.

If and until another word for equality between the sexes arrives, I hereby, reclaim 'feminist' and wear it with pride.