Lasagna, what you said is basically the reason why I don't accept the label "feminist" to myself--modern feminism not only contains more than simply "women are people," it often contains contradictory claims that make it hard to define it. Like "socialism," it now implies many different things to many different people, and I end up thinking that a better label should be found.

Nelia, my personal view is that feminism was a historical movement, and like all historical movements it was an instantiation in specific history of possibilities, it was one of a number of could-have-beens. Reducing it to a basic idea like "women are people" would be like reducing communism to a basic idea like "fairness for the working class" or "from each according to their skills, to each according to their needs". They also have a history, and this history is now part of what they are, of what they have been thus far. Your comments about how feminism excluded gays and transgendered people at different moments of its history makes this point nicely.

The potential, the ideals of course still remains out there. The ideas that "women are people too" and that "workers deserve a fair deal" are still out there, regardless of whatever else has been associated with the movements that first claimed to defend them.

If I could have my dream world suddenly come into existence... we wouldn't have gotten rid of stereotypes about sexual groups and/or genders (as a friend of mine once put it, males and females are such obvious groups that it's unrealistic to hope we'll ever live without some sort of stereotype about each other), but we would have put them into perspective. Armed with the idea that "women (and men) are people too", we would keep stereotypes as elements for stories and jokes--we'd laugh about them. They would play the role of comic relief in our lives, and no other. Just like queens, kings, princes and princesses still abound in our fairy tales, despite the fact that we don't support absolute monarchy as a political system anymore.

Nelia, thanks for agreeing you don't have to be female to believe in equality. Judging by the knee-jerk reactions I got in some blogs, this doesn't seem to be so terribly obvious for certain groups of feminists.

Lasagna, what you said is basically the reason why I don't accept the label "feminist" to myself--modern feminism not only contains more than simply "women are people," it often contains contradictory claims that make it hard to define it. Like "socialism," it now implies many different things to many different people, and I end up thinking that a better label should be found.

Nelia, my personal view is that feminism was a historical movement, and like all historical movements it was an instantiation in specific history of possibilities, it was one of a number of could-have-beens. Reducing it to a basic idea like "women are people" would be like reducing communism to a basic idea like "fairness for the working class" or "from each according to their skills, to each according to their needs". They also have a history, and this history is now part of what they are, of what they have been thus far. Your comments about how feminism excluded gays and transgendered people at different moments of its history makes this point nicely.

The potential, the ideals of course still remains out there. The ideas that "women are people too" and that "workers deserve a fair deal" are still out there, regardless of whatever else has been associated with the movements that first claimed to defend them.

If I could have my dream world suddenly come into existence... we wouldn't have gotten rid of stereotypes about sexual groups and/or genders (as a friend of mine once put it, males and females are such obvious groups that it's unrealistic to hope we'll ever live without some sort of stereotype about each other), but we would have put them into perspective. Armed with the idea that "women (and men) are people too", we would keep stereotypes as elements for stories and jokes--we'd laugh about them. They would play the role of comic relief in our lives, and no other. Just like queens, kings, princes and princesses still abound in our fairy tales, despite the fact that we don't support absolute monarchy as a political system anymore.

All the things you mention have been invented by people, and can be reclaimed by other people too.

Or do you think Americans didn't have the right to call French fries "freedom fries" just because they didn't invent them? :-)

What a coincidence, my pussy has just been thoroughly washed, and she (yes, it's a she) likes it even less. The way she is meowing now, like some creature from beyond the grave, makes me think it'll be a while before we're friends again. I think I'll have problems trying to pet or caress my pussy tonight. Oh god, oh god, what will I do if I can't touch my pussy?

Well, you get off your high horses first. Leeandra wasn't calling anybody "pervert or pedophile" just because she doesn't like the "sexy stubble" look. No hypocrisy here, just her taste, to which she's as entitled as you are to yours, don't you think?

Also, even the original post isn't calling anybody "pertvert" or "pedophile"; not even the original Times article for that matter. As far as I can see, that's limited to a few more emotional posters here like yourself.

For someone who loves compromise -- which I wholeheartedly support -- you seem not to like to listen to others. You sound as if you got angry when people express different tastes, as if they were passing judgment on yours.

Again--get off your own high horses.