I don’t know that this was the case with Notorious Ph.D.’s students, but it is a possibility, I suppose.

P.S. I don’t mean that as a condemnation of pro-choice feminists or anything; it’s just an observation.

So, if you identify as a feminist, you have to deal with comments like, “If you were a REAL feminist, you would keep your maiden name (or make your husband change his), let yourself be defined at work by your constant agitation for better childcare options, not stay at home with your children for one day longer than your husband does, etc.”

So what about women who want to stay at home with their kids (or who at least respect that choice), but who also want to do freelance web design and who donate to Planned Parenthood? It’s just not as simple as “with us or against us”, here.

We do not see men, who may object to our equality, splitting themselves off as masculanists. No, they are men, males keep their identity.

And I still find most women laugh out loud when they hear, “I am feminist, hear me roar.”

No, I shall not water down my gender or its fight for equality with cute, frilly names.

My formal education was in science. While teaching in a medical school for many many years, I’ve seen a lot of history. From when women were not even allowed in to where over half the classes were women.

They were fighters, they were women and they made history and I was privileged to teach and learn from so many of them.

I will say that I think (re?)claiming the label “feminist” is, if not the solution, it’s certainly not the problem, as twandx suggests. I think it’s important for feminists to identify as feminists, and to give voice to feminist concerns and call them feminist. (At the very least, it’s participating in scrubbing history of feminists not to claim certain issues and causes as feminist, and to ignore their history of activism.) While I think that Squadratomagico is correct in that it’s perhaps largely a rejection of a label, rather than a rejection of the ideas, I wonder why it is that (for example) lots of university-affiliated people are happy to affiliate with anti-racism causes and gay rights causes, but they hold back at calling themselves feminist. (Not everyone mind you, but the target audience I’m thinking of.) At bottom, I’m concerned that this is a kind of erasure of women from political history–the “girls are icky” school, so we should ignore or minimize their work so that men can take credit for advancing X cause, because if we acknowledge women’s work in it it will make it look less important or less significant.

I would like to take Notorious up on her offer to do a dual-post on Judith Bennett’s History Matters in March–it’s an excellent idea! (She’s braver than I in assigning it to undergrads–while I think most grad students and professional women’s historians will dig it and be able to follow the professional gossip, I’d be concerned that the names and references to scholars and books would be a little off-putting to an audience of non-specialists. So, I’m eager to hear what her students make of it!)

Until we own our all being women, any characterization of us is just as damning to ALL women. This means waking up more women. It means the critics of our movement are talking and writing about ALL females.

That makes them pause as most will have mothers, sisters, wives or daughters.