lf l could give out more than one mushroom, this would be it.

Thanks!

There are other issues that have come to mind since I wrote that - equal responsibilities is a big thing to me. If we had to reinstate the draft (all gods forbid), would women have to register as well as men? (I certainly hope so - if we're asking for equal rights, we MUST have equal responsibilities.)

Is there still inequity in family law, biased toward the woman, as many people (and most divorced men) believe? Do family law judges still automatically prefer the mother for primary custody of non-infant children? Do women receive a disproportionate settlement in contested property divorces? (I should elucidate further that the latter has NOT been my experience - most of the women I know who've been divorced ended up far worse off financially than their ex-husbands. But there is definitely still a societal belief that this is the case.)

Re: your first paragraph, l agree, without question.

Your second paragraph:
Yes, there's still inequality in family law - you'll find a number of men in Washington state who have been burned by it.

Yes, many family law judges do prefer the mother for primary custody, often to the detriment of the child. My dad's second wife (who is a certified nutcase and severely bipolar) intends to sue him for full custody of a mentally and physically handicapped child, though she's demonstrated in a number of ways she is incapable of raising him in a healthy and stable environment. She expects to win this because she intends to file in Sydney, where the courts are notoriously mother-friendly. l hope that her previous behavior will prove her incompetency in court, but my father and l are currently going through the terror that she might actually win - which means neither of us are likely to see my brother again.

Do women receive disproportionate settlements? l don't think so, but only because l believe the bias is reversed, and even if she's looking for a reasonable settlement on which to survive, she is often seen as a gold-digger.

l believe all of these are gender-biased and unfair, but the first two questions -and what men suffer as a result- are a little more tragic. No loving, fit parent should ever be denied their children based on anything other than proof of behavior and ability to provide. There is no concrete evidence of which l'm aware that proves that a mother is a better parent (or somehow more nurturing) a majority of the time. lt is sadly often the case that she is far worse. l am of the firm belief that when it comes to parenting, all gender roles or assumptions pretty much fly out the window.

To me it's such a fundamental assumption of my world view that I can't say that it's had a specific impact on my life.

Hmm, l suppose l was looking for a more personal definition, but your clarification indicates that this is probably the best answer you could give based on your experience.

However, a passing thought - your definition may also be a fundamental assumption in my own life (and it surely is), but that doesn't preclude it from having an impact, when sometimes an impact comes from outside sources and is out of our control. l guess this is sort of what l was asking about. Thank you!

So what is your interpretation of mainstream feminism vs the overall concept that you elaborate on here? Thanks for sharing!

Great question! When I say mainstream feminism, I mean the feminist thinking that is the least in opposition to the dominant culture and social status quo. So for example, "equal pay for equal work" has been a compelling mainstream feminist argument mostly now accepted by the average gamut of Democrats and Republicans (dominant political culture). At least in principal. I mean even on Fox News these days it is unlikely that one will hear that lady lawyers should be paid less than regular lawyers because ladies aren't family breadwinners. And yes, this was something people used to say, before U.S. mainstream feminism changed the status quo, dominant view of this question in this country. And not without struggle and not without significant losses along the way: they never did get the ERA, the constitutional platform that mainstream feminists used to wage the debate on equal pay. But you see how "mainstream" it was by the tools they used, the existing US Constitution, all legal and logical within the bounds of the familiar culture. Contrast this with the feminism of an Angela Davis, who argues that the oppressions of sexism and racism are inextricably linked within the existing political culture and that only a socialist and revolutionary transformation of our culture can bring about liberation for women and people of color. Or contrast mainstream feminists to the lesbian separatist movement (why are all my examples from the seventies?), which disavowed connection with the dominant political order and status quo culture and men in general and straight women and formed communes and went back to the land or travelled the country on motorcycles and dressed in clothes deemed outlandish by most other people and really didn't give a fuck about the government because from their point of view, it was not their government, and might not even care too much about equal pay for equal work since they tried as much as possible to form economies internal to their group (like organic farms or publishing houses).

Wow I can't believe that whole frickin essay got pulled out of me. Now can you share what led you to your question in the first place?

Actually, it was inspired by an article by Naomi Wolf on porn that l think will make an interesting new question: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

Anyway, a close friend and l had a discussion about it, and its ramifications on our similar views of feminism and its role, as well as what we both thought men also needed and deserved in the midst of womens' lib. l'll post a new question on it now.

So what school of thought do you personally identify with?

I'm a feminist and I also believe what B Strand says about gender not being a trap or a stereotype for anyone, just I guess I'm trying to carve out "feminism" for issues pertaining to women. I'm: Go gender liberation! Go men's liberation! Go gay rights! Go anti-racism! But the question you asked at the beginning was a "definition of feminism," and that got me all involved in realizing I use that word to pertain to females. The whole "mainstream" vs. radical part of my answer was saying there have been in history and around the world many versions of feminism. Some of them have sucked (like when they tried to kick out the lesbians from NOW in the '60's, and I could name lots of other dumb feminist stuff that I disagree with). What is "mainstream" now is different from what was mainstream for the suffragettes. My point was that there is no one feminism, there have been many feminisms, an evolving and conflicted and necessary field of discourse pertaining to oppressions that pertain to women. And I never really said it before, but there you have it!

And I'm gonna go read that Wolf article, thanks for the link.

l'll be honest: while it may seem ignorant, l've never read a piece of feminist literature. All other kinds of literature, sure, but l'm pretty sure that -other than once skimming Andrea Dworkin's work with a sense of horror and disgust- l've never specifically read a feminist work. l think that, as a child, l heard so many different versions of feminism (many of which l completely disagreed with) that l dismissed it as a bunch of women gone crazy; keep in mind l was too young at the time to realize how important a movement it was in regards to rights, or that l was living through history in the making. Later, having formed what l feel are healthy views on feminism, l didn't feel any need to fuck with or influence them in any negative manner. This will probably change now that l'm in a place in my life where my feelings on the matter are pretty much set. l think that what you said here fairly well sums up what l believe, which is that feminism pertains to both men and women, in that a man can often be a feminist, and that, in fact, if it pertains to one gender, it must therefore address and include the rights and needs of the other. This is why my original question was so deliberately broad - l didn't want to exclude the very thoughts you share here by influencing the answers with too many specifics. l LOVE your thoughts, thank you!

Interesting and fun—happy Questionlanding!

That reminds me, l need to put up a QL happy hour potluck thread. You in? Hope so.

l hear that last part. l prefer the term 'womens' lib' myself, mainly because for me and my growing up, it didn't feel as much like a movement so much as a letting go, a conscious rejection of anything that stifled our growth. (l think in some ways that is still true, but has become a new extreme for some of the younger women, and not necessarily in a good way.)

l could certainly point out the times that being a female cook at a restaurant led to lower wages, hours, or less promotions than others got, but l think that's an aspect l've learned to accept as the nature of the beast. l think the ways in which feminism has affected me has been in regards to sex and relationships specifically. Even in modern times when the struggles should have far more depth, the idea that l must be chaste, monogamous, and married to have some value still persists. Despite these drawbacks that continue to be part of being a woman in today's society, l entirely agree with you that is MUCH better than times past, and feel lucky to have grown up in this particular day and age.

I prefer the term "gender equity" but I seem to be alone in that one.

Actually, l like that too. l guess l never considered it, because anytime someone challenged my casual sexual attitude, l just called it liberation, but l think l'm with you on the gender equity version myself.

l really like that one as well.

Hi, The book was by Germaine Greer! It's pretty good, but starting to feel somewhat outdated.

l'm not sure l agree with the reasoning either, but l'm with you both on the definition.