what is feminism?

How bout that? Well it's wrong, to begin with...The first women's rights conference was held twenty years before Subjugation of Women was written; and the movement begin some time before that conference.Women began the organized women's rights movement in the US, specifically women (like Elizabeth Cady Stanton) involved in the abolitionist movement who realized that they themselves were lacking and deserving of many rights, not unlike the slaves they were fighting to free.Women's rights ideas had been around much longer in less organized form, at least back to the Revolutionary era and their promotion by Abigail Adams and others.Maybe not quite "average" women but definitely not "academic", at least not in the sense you use...

Your assertion regarding the foundations of feminism by an academic male in the late 1850's was shown to be wrong.You still are asserting an academic foundation of feminism.What information, correct or otherwise, are you now basing this assertion upon?

Quite silly, if you ask me. Citing a grade-school teacher as an "academic" in the same sense as the modern feminist academic movement is more than a stretch. I see... now you've come up with a definition that is ambiguous enough that it can be used to define anyone you want to claim is an academic.The definition you provide is very different than that defined by the word's usage in this thread - based on use and context here, "academic" would be defined to include the often implied disconnect between academia and the "real world".Also, to respond to another line of commentary: You load these comments with the word "directly"; studies to understand the molecular physiology of the human heart will have significant impact on medical treatment, even though you deem them "indirect". Studies of things that might seem without medical relevance to you have a profound effect on medicine, even deep sea worms. Before you made this line of argument I posted this topic, describing how fly egg development and yeast cell division have been used to greatly advance understanding and treatment of colon cancer. How academic...In any case, I don't see that you answered schraf's main protest (though perhaps I missed it); which was a request to see some evidence that academic feminism guides mainstream feminism.

Crash, you ignorant fool, ALL chaps are assless! (third time's a charm?)I do agree, though, that the word "assless" should be enjoyed more than it is. Just like the word "squeegee".Squeegee the assless chaps.
Squeegee the assless chaps.
Squeegee the assless chaps.

Weren't you just the one complaining about the association of riding gear with sex?Believe me, I love to here about your ass-slapping adventures in beastiality land, it just seems a bit strange given your previous comments. But don't stop on my account...

The extraction should be eased by the access provided by the assless chaps. Assless chaps. Squeegee the assless chaps. Assless chaps.

I don't believe that is the reclamation referred to; indeed the use you describe is not reclamation at all."Bitch" has another connotation entirely that you are ignoring; one of being strong and true to your own personality without apology to those you offend along the way.If you haven't heard "bitch" used that way, perhaps you leave your computer desk for awhile, (or at least download some episodes of AbFab to watch).

I'm not talking about the word as an insult; I'm talking about it's post-insult use as a compliment (quite different from not-too-offensive). As I see it the "reclaimed" version of the word bitch has nothing to do with the "ho" connotation that you claim is that version - Taking a derogatory term and using it in a different derogatory way doesn't even qualify as reclamation.I have a few friends that I call "bitch" occasionally - it has absolutely nothing to do with degradation, ownership, or my mad pimpin' abilities. When I use the term it is referring to their strength in staying true to themselves despite what other people think - it is a compliment, not an insult.