"Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries' hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion."

The right to bear arms is equivalent to the right of self defense. Only a cloistered armchair liberal who has never had to fight for any of his freedoms, let alone his life, would make such a naive and absurd statement as this. Has it ever occurred to you that, someday, we might not all be as comfortable and safe as we are now? Has it ever occurred to you that someday you might have to actually, physically, fight for survival, or for some of those freedoms that you so cherish?

The Second Amendment was put in the constitution for a deadly serious reason. It should be granted just as much respect as the First Amendment. And we should all hope and pray that we never see the day when any of us has to exercise it.

This was a great little piece of investigative reporting. I wish there was a Recommend button for me to click on.

My understanding of feminism, gleaned from the political philosphy classes that I took in college, is that it involves three concept: (1) gender is socially constructed and not naturally occurring; (2) there is a power dynamic inherent in gender roles, as they are currently constructed; and (3) that power dynamic is designed with an eye to male empowerment and female disempowerment (this last point is the reason I don't consider myself a feminist).

Miss Valenti seems to present feminism as merely a jumbled hodgepodge of gender related positions and beliefs, most of them more accurately described as liberal and not feminist. Perhaps this presentation is meant to appeal to the younger women her book is targeted at. However, it does seem to be a kind of condescending attempt to "dumb down" feminism for the younger generation.

"Do you think it's fair that a guy will make more money doing the same job as you? Does it piss you off and scare you when you find out about your friends getting raped? Do you ever feel like shit about your body? Do you ever feel like something is wrong with you because you don't fit into this bizarre ideal of what girls are supposed to be like? Well, my friend, I hate to break it to you, but you're a hardcore feminist. I swear."

This was the quote that I was primarily reacting to. Believing in equality, opposing rape, being conscious of body image issues, and feeling like you don't fit in, with regard to gender or any other issue, does not necessarily make you a feminist, let alone a "hardcore feminist." There are specific ideas of gender and power that you have to believe in to be a feminist.

P.S.: I mentioned my college classes more as a caveat than anything else. I was essentially saying "I'm no expert, but the little that I know about feminism is..." Your sarcasm was not merited. As you can see from the star next to my letter, it appears that the editors of Broadsheet agree with me. Would you defer to their "vast experience" regarding feminism?

...It is a concept, an identity, a movement, based on specific ideas about gender and power. These ideas, and a belief in them, are the substance of it. The people who call themselves feminists must be conscious of its core ideas. Otherwise, what is feminism? A social club? A clique? A sorority?

I never said that I was ignorant about feminism. Acknowledging the limits of my knowledge is hardly a plea of ignorance. I've read Mary Wollstonecraft. I've read John Stuart Mill. I've read selected pieces from various anthologies of 70s feminist writing. I have read a little Gloria Steinem. I've even read Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. I know enough to know what feminism is and what it isn't. I stand by my previous statement about the three core concepts of feminism. And I certainly know enough to register an educated opinion on this article and interview.

Regarding your question about equal pay, bodily integrity, and autonomy: feminism does not own these issues. I believe that women should get equal pay for equal work, be physically secure and safe, and own themselves (men too, for that matter), and yet I am not a feminist. I recognize that gender can be an instrument of power (as can anything in this world), but I don't believe that power is its primary purpose, nor do I believe that gender as an instrument of power necessarily favors men over women. My belief in your three issues cited above is independent of my beliefs about gender and power. It comes from my beliefs about personal freedom.

A black woman would not need a formal theory to be opposed to racism. However, she would need to consciously identify with a specific set of core beliefs to call herself a black nationalist.

Similarly, a gay man need not have a formal theory to oppose homophobia. However, if there was a school of political thought called Homoism, there would probably be some core ideas about power and sexual orientation that the gay man would have to adhere to in order to legitimately be part of the group.

Yes, I suppose that is what I am saying. I suppose that I am making the point because I think that the distinction is important to both (a) real "hardcore feminists" for whom feminism, and its notions of engendered power, really resonate, and (b) women who really aren't feminists and who may regret getting caught up in a movement that really doesn't represent them.

Glad we could come to a meeting of the minds, such as it is.