"Greg B, that's the kind of verbal nitpickery feminists are often accused of."

Absolutely! Feminists have recognized from the beginning that
language of inclusion is important and that its use is a driver
of equality an that the refusal to use it is equally telling.

Reactionaries, on the other hand, have attempted to trivialize
and invalidate that point in order to preserve their status quo.

They have used terms such as 'verbal nitpickery' to try and make
the point that language doesn't matter--- that the term 'mankind'
is just as good as 'humankind' or that 'chairman' is as good as
'chairperson' or 'chairwoman' when applied to a woman in charge.

Others have waxed fearful for the destruction of the English language
as we know it.

We all know better--- language is rarely accidental, and choice of
words reflects underlying attitudes.

>There were and are plenty of men who agree that women should have
>full access to whatever men have full access to, but a great many of
>them don't care to be referred to as 'feminists', for whatever their >reasons may be.

Perhaps because the feminist movement has in one way or another,
made them feel like they're not a part of it?

>Likewise, there are men who take on the label with enthusiasm. I look >forward to the day when, where human issues are concerned, we can >refer to ourselves, regardless of gender, as humans, or people.

I think that's a bit of a cop-out. 'Feminism' by its very nature,
is not gender-neutral, nor is it symmetrical. It recognizes inherent
inequality in the way in which some societies treat females and
seeks to address that. It cannot do so without recognizing gender;
my point is that it has to recognize gender in an inclusive manner.

>I don't know how old you are, Greg, but in the early days of the most >recent women's movement, a dismaying majority of men were very much >opposed to gender equality, or agreed that some things should be >changed, but not all, or that women were going too far, or that all >feminists were 'lesbians and manhaters'. Men who called themselves >feminists received a great deal of abuse from other men for speaking >up.

I was right in the middle of that, and got my fair share of
such abuse.

Then again, I also took a modicum of abuse from the "you're male,
you couldn't possibly understand" and "we'll do this ourselves"
wing of feminism. I've had to listen to the "all men are rapists"
crap. If the people who uttered that aren't 'man haters' they
certainly manage to pump out their share of "hate speech."

>Calling oneself a feminist is not fashionable these days. Many young
>women shy away from the label while espousing the goals.

Which suggests to me that 'feminism' damaged itself as I pointed
out in your language above--- by neglecting to be unfailingly
inclusive, and by indulging itself in language and rhetoric of
non-inclusiveness.

>I can suggest several reasons for that, one being the extreme
>male-hating rhetoric from a small but vocal contingent of radical >feminist writers and speakers, most of whom are long since retired or >dead, but who are always referred to by men who resent any suggestion >that just maybe womens' rights have a ways to go.

Interesting rhetorical U-turn there. You refer first to "many young
women shy[ing] away from the label." But then you attach "referred
to by men" as if men are, somehow, empowered to dissuade young
women from labeling themselves "feminist." Ever consider that
just perhaps those young women have, under their own steam, found
rhetoric like Dworkin's to be the sort of crap with which they don't
want to associate themselves? That perhaps they've arrived at that
conclusion independent of the influence of men? (And while Dworkin
is deceased, a casual 'Google' of her suggests she's far from 'dead.')

>Another is the wish by younger women not to alienate their male
>friends and colleagues, who are also young and don't often know what
>the fuss was all about, and are fed tales of affirmative action >threatening their jobs.

Well, affirmative action IS in fact dead. But I again find it
disappointing that you attribute young womens' perhaps distancing
themselves from the term 'feminist' in order to please men or because
they are afraid of what men will think. I believe that in doing so,
you sell those young women short.

>And yet another is the rise of the religious right, both Islamic and
>Christian, wherein women and men are told that God says they are not >equal. I've seen very religious couples who spout the Biblical or >Koran's message of man being the head, yet practice equality in no >uncertain terms.

Even outside of the 'religious right,' there seems to be a post-
Feminist recognition that in familial relationships complete
symmetry is nearly impossible. At least until men are able to bear
and nurse children. (Interesting, isn't it, that the feminist era
precisely overlapped with the 1st-world's return to breast-feeding
and the resulting additional maternal ties which it entails?)

It's still quite rare to hear a man say that he really wants to
set his career aside to become a 'stay at home Dad.' To me,
'feminism' also means that women who want to do that ought to
have that right (if they can afford it financially).

But even beyond that, there seems to be a recognition that men and
women approach the world and problem-solving in rather different
ways, and as a result in general show a different pattern of
contributions within the family.

Then again, long before feminism, women were allowing their husbands
to THINK they were in charge, even though everybody kind of knew
that it wasn't ever really the case. Perhaps what we see now is just
a continuation of the time-honored tradition of letting husbands
believe that they actually have any say over anything .