As the young recipients of the most privileged and least stratified world yet, many of us, especially in the United States, have been let off the feminist hook. For many plausible reasons (we feel we've "won the battle," we feel disengaged from the "movement," we feel alienated from our second wave mentors, etc.) we’ve entered a new phase in which we encourage the practice of whatever “form” of feminism appeals to us. The women of Manifesta and Bust, and related publications, tell us we can make feminism mean anything we want it to – girly, butch, wiccan, kitch, what-have-you. There can be power in that kind of self-determination. But when we simply look to recreate in our own image in that way, and when we create such rifts in our own ranks, we fail to look at what feminism might mean without the privilege we enjoy. The reality is – as bell hooks said years ago, but bears mentioning now – struggle is rarely safe or pleasurable. And feminism at its core remains a struggle. So while by all means we should look to enjoy and celebrate our lives and our identities, it is crucial that we look for solidarity with one another, and it is crucial that our solidarity is as deep as our feminism and vice versa.

So I say this: practice any kind of feminism that is meaningful to you. Make it fun, make it pink, make it kinky. This is all fine (and not just fine: wonderful), AS LONG AS fundamental to your definition of feminism is your commitment to work in solidarity with other women and men for the utter, no-holds-barred eradication of domination in human relationships, for the emancipation of all people, for safe bodies and safe communities, everywhere.

First of all, in what way is BUST aimed at the Carrie Bradshaws of the world? I just read the latest issue, and there wasn't one mention of Manolo Blahnik, Dolce, or whatever club in Manhattan is trendy.

Second, do we (women) really need to line up for another circular firing squad? Aren't we expending enough bullets on the "mommy wars"?

A year or so ago, Barbara Ehrenreich had a piece in Harpers about the breast cancer awareness movement (which she called a "cult"). It pointed out that the movement, which is overwhelmingly run by women, adopted as its symbol a pink teddy bear. Ehrenreich pointed out that this tends to portray women in a childish light. I wonder why this happens.

I only discovered it recently (got it because it had Karen O on the cover) and was so incredibly relieved to read a magazine for women that wasn't "10 ways to please your man" or "How to have a bikini-ready body in six weeks." Bust makes jokes that aren't puns and has some really great interviews. It reminded me a bit of Esquire (although for people with less disposable income) in its interesting, varied content and its ability to not take itself so damn seriously (Cosmo, I'm looking at you). Maybe it's not the NOW handbook, but why should it be? It's a magazine for women and the folks in charge are going to fill it with whatever they happen to find interesting and relevant, not what party feminists vote on as appropriate. If you would like something different, it's getting easier all the time to start your own magazine.

Yet again, someone is telling women what a "feminist" is. You know what? I can like high heels and fashion and dying my hair and trimming my pubes and still be a feminist. I am so sick of the way women sabotage each other with self-righteous judgment. You want to be a vegan, non-grooming feminist? Great! You want to be a stripper feminist? Great! It's a big wide world and we all fit in it.

And yes there are horrible things happening to women in this world every day. And there are horrible things happening to women in this country every day. Yet someone could still think that in the poisonously anti-woman world we live in, something as simple as my "getting myself off" isn't feminist? Tell that to my sisters with clitoridectomies. Tell that to my grandmothers who were socialized into believing their own sexual responses were pathological. I would rather read an article about a new vibrator than hear someone rant and rave about how personal grooming is an affront to my womanhood. Give me a break.

...all consumerism and fluff that occasionally sneaks in a mildly pro-woman piece. And your getting all excited about this crap? Why does anyone need a magazine to tell them how to be happy, especially a magazine that caters to 'girls' and is read by women who consider themselves 'girls'. Geez, get a life.

That pretty much sums it up for me. Twisty is anti-fun. She's a kill-joy. Some people characterize her as sardonic, ascerbic and cutting, but as I've become aware of her I've just found her to be consistently mean. And being mean for media attention reminds me other pundits who have taken a political opinion and turned it into a burgeoning media career: Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin and O'Reilly.

Where's your 'heavy artillery'? Why'd you enter into the debate you pretend to despise, and avoid taking on "oppression and double standards" yourself?

I write for BUST, and have for the past decade, so my opinion is bound to be biased (as well as redundant -- I posted this on IBTP). However, i just wanted to point out that the recent issue of the magazine contains a number of explicitly feminist articles and features:

A front-of-the-book piece about registering women to vote

One about a woman running an elephant preserve

A feature on women and socially conscious farming

My own (admittedly redundant and outdated) news column (hard to keep fresh when you're on a three-month lead time), covering things like barriers to abortion access and rape laws in Pakistan

The Jill Soloway/Amy Poehler interview, which decries both plastic surgery and porn -- a quote:

"JS: What about the whole Pussycat Dolls version of feminism?

AP: It’s so bullshit.”

Brava!