All this arguing over the meaning of feminism and who is and who isn't a feminist has made one thing clear to me -- the fact that we can have these kinds of arguments means that the core of feminism has succeeded and that the concept has passed from a movement to an establishment. Very few people are making the argument these days that it's only fitting for women to stay at home and give birth, tend to the house, and raise children. Very few people question the rights of women to do what they please with their lives, be the masters of their own bodies and property, and enjoy legal equality.

What does this mean? Well, from where I'm sitting, it means that the biggest battles of feminism are behind us and that feminists are casting about, looking for something new to do. It's an awkward state that many successful movements find themselves trapped in after their initial successes.

I'm not convinced that the label means anything anymore, given the wide variety of existing interpretations. Why not try to move on, accept that much of what needed redress has been resolved in favor of women and feminism, and deal with the remaining issues on an issue-by-issue basis? Maybe then, instead of fighting over terminology, people can say what they mean, advocate for what they believe, and possibly resolve something else?

Feminism isn't dead. It's not in need of reinvigoration. It succeeded and now we need to learn to think in terms of the present world.

Sevumar:

Very few people are making the argument these days that it's only fitting for women to stay at home and give birth, tend to the house, and raise children. Very few people question the rights of women to do what they please with their lives, be the masters of their own bodies and property, and enjoy legal equality. . . .

Feminism isn't dead. It's not in need of reinvigoration. It succeeded and now we need to learn to think in terms of the present world.

That means at most that feminism has succeeded in establishing the minimum feminist agenda in Western cultures. (And not long ago, either. XX Factor is still full of comments about the first female this, that or t'other.) It still doesn't mean that it is equally likely that a woman of middle class origins and education will rise to the same level as her similarly endowed brother. Nor does it mean that elite roles in government, business and academe are filled equally by women and men. Still less does it mean that the greatly increased presence of women in the elite compared to 50 years ago has transformed the way decisions are made or business is done. There is plenty of room for argument over how far those things should happen, and what needs to change in state and culture to make them happen.

In particular, there is still plenty of room for argument over the burden of nurture, who should bear it, how it should be reconciled with the demands of the public sphere, and how it should be rewarded economically and psychically. (Cynic that I am, I tend to think that the ideal solution to that problem is servants, but this is not a popular view.)

"Very few people are making the argument these days that it's only fitting for women to stay at home and give birth, tend to the house, and raise children. Very few people question the rights of women to do what they please with their lives, be the masters of their own bodies and property, and enjoy legal equality."

The Religious Right disagrees with the above. Unfortunately they are not so 'very few' as you claim...especially with the 'masters of their own bodies' part.

Were you asleep when Bush signed the HHS bill that allowed pharmacists to refuse to prescribe birth control of any type? So please don't take any level of reproductive rights for granted.

Keep in mind that "battle of sexes" has never really been a struggle against oppression by men. Rather, it's always been a fight against the oppression of the expectations of other women.

Once you grasp this, it's pretty easy to see why the struggle goes on. If you think that the battle is being "won", it's just because you're able to live the way you want to live. But that doesn't mean that women in the next town over share your views - or refrain from criticizing you for your deviation from their standards.

"Feminism" is merely a specific set of standards for the behavior of women, one of many. And, like every other such standard, it mocks and denigrates other standards as being inferior.

Xando:

"Feminism" is merely a specific set of standards for the behavior of women, one of many. And, like every other such standard, it mocks and denigrates other standards as being inferior.

In traditional socities, Western and other, there is a sharp differentiation between the male external sphere and female household sphere, and men believe that real, important life is the things that men do in the external sphere. What I've called the minimum feminist program -- the removal of disabilities and the opening of the public sphere to female careers -- demands the removal of barriers to female entry precisely because it accepts the male valuation of the public sphere as superior and regards exclusion/discrimination as a badge of inferiority. Not all women agree that the male sphere is superior.

The great remaining barrier to full participation, and the great cause of discord among women, is female primary responsibility for nurture -- children, aged parents or (in Sandra O'Connor's case) a husband in ill health. One school of feminist thought tends to regard responsibility for nurture as a burden unfairly imposed upon women (e.g. the comment that O'Connor could not be a feminist because no man would leave the Supreme Court to care for a wife with Alzheimer's). This attitude tends to provoke an angry response from women who have embraced nurture and who believe that they are being belittled by women who have in effect gone over to the male side.