Here I have transcribed, in-part, the responses to the questions I asked this professor.

I plan to reply in writing, and if you all would like to participate or add your 2¢, I welcome the help before I take my swings at it.

"What is Feminism [to you]?"

Ah, this is an easy one. I am a liberal feminist, grounded in a neo-Kantian ethical world view. That means that to me, feminism is a foundational belief that women are morally equal to men because, like all rational beings, we are moral beings –persons. All persons have the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect for their interests and have the unalterable obligation to do the same for all other persons. Feminism is also the recognition that this equality is not recognized or respected (the degree varies) throughout most of the world. The goal of liberal feminism is to promote social and political equality that recognizes and respects our actual moral equality. This does not mean there are no actual differences between men and women, only that there are no moral differences.

"When would Feminism determine all its goals were complete"?

That depends on the feminism. Liberal feminists would consider their goals complete when no woman was ever disadvantaged solely because of her femininity, and when feminine qualities were no longer seen as inherently inferior. The second point would take a long time to explain fully, but let me give a brief example. If my daughter were to go to the movies in jeans and a t-shirt, nothing would be thought of it – even if she bought those in the boy’s section for comfort. She would not be perceived as “cross-dressing” or “acting gay”. However, if my son wore a skirt and a tank top, he would be ridiculed. Why? Similarly, when a girl is one of the guys, there is no inherent insult there. In fact, it can be a good trait. But if a guy is told he’s acting like a girl, there is an implicit insult to his masculinity. Why? Because the feminine is seen to be inferior.

Radical feminists want something different. Radical feminism sees the very structure of modern society with everything from capitalism, to most modern political systems, and in some cases heterosexuality itself as inherently sexist and oppressive. Marxist feminists are a branch of radical feminists. Their goals will only be achieved when all vestiges of patriarchy are abolished and a matriarchy established. They want to destroy the current patriarchal system and replace it with a system in which women are strongly advantaged in the power structure. This view is best represented by Mary Daly.

To be fair, as with most ideologies, there are very few in the radical branch. First, second, and third wave feminists are vastly dominated by liberal feminists.

"When should Feminism be taught?"

There is no “official stance” on this in the feminist community. So, I will give you my view Feminism, like all ethical enquiries, should be taught when boys and girls start asking ethical dilemma questions. The natural of the teaching (exploring of questions and ideas more properly – I am always opposed to indoctrinating over critical inquiry) will evolve with the child/adult progressively with age. But, when my son and daughter asked questions about why students called a colleague Dr. and me Mrs. and if it bothered me (I think they were 5 and 8 at the time), we started talking about feminism, the different kinds, and different issues. We started the discussion by acknowledging that we are different biologically and discussing the difference between biological sex and gender. We went from there. I explained, they asked questions, posed scenarios, I answered, we pondered. We have repeated that on deeper levels since (now 14 and 17).

"What role do/should men play in society according to Feminism?"

I will answer for liberal feminists. The answer is, whatever role they are intellectually, emotionally, and physically suited for, and that will differ person to person. It is true that men are generally physically stronger than women and that women are generally better at creative endeavors requiring multi-tasking than men. But, there are many exceptions to this. I have known many very physically strong women, and many nurturing, creative men. I, for example, am almost entirely left-brained logical. So, I went into a profession (philosopher and then administrator as well) that is almost entirely dominated by men. That is where I fit. At home, I do the homework with the kids and my husband is with them when they are sick. I am better with them when they are upset and he is better with them when they are hyper and ready to run around and be wild. It is all a function of personal strengths and challenges. Some are grounded in our individual biology, some are nurtured. But the key is, no one should be defined or limited by their sex.

"What do you make of the recent moves by women (who happen to be relative public figures) to abandon Feminism or even call themselves 'anti-feminist'?"

I think it is because the word carries so much baggage it does not deserve. As I said, the overwhelming majority of feminists are liberal feminists, but the pop-culture view paints feminists as radicals. Women have been socialized to build their identity based on what others think of them, whereas men tend to be socialized to build their identity based on what they have done and/or how they see themselves. Women fear that being seen as a feminist makes them seem less feminine, less attractive, less lovable toward their significant others and children. That is a powerful fear for women in particular as so much of our identity is tied up in those roles.

"What does Feminism do to end the suffering of children?"

First let me say that this is far more true in the developing world that in the “first world.” When women are discriminated against, they are almost always economically disadvantaged. This is a matter of degree, again, but it is intensely true in the developing world. When women suffer economic disadvantage, that disadvantage and the accompanying suffering is passed directly on to their children. Thus, if we can relieve the disadvantage through feminist activism and policies, we can relieve the suffering of children. On a more meta level, the activism of my fore-mothers created opportunities for me that, as a child of non-college educated parents, in a culture that is very oppressive to women, I would otherwise never have had. The women who insisted on being admitted to university, then to graduate programs, then to the professoriate. The women who sued for tenure when it was deserved and not granted. These women made it possible for me to have the only career I ever dreamed of. I had to work unbelievably hard to get here, but there was no ‘here’ before they opened the doors.

"What has Feminism done to end the suffering of Men?"

If I could change one thing about the views on feminism, it would be for it to be seen as a movement for men and women. Sexism against women is also sexism against men. It limits us. By defining harsh limit for what women can and must be, we force men to limit what they can be as well. Worse, we force men into the position of limiting the possibilities of the girls and women they love and want to respect. Feminism is about respecting each person for who they are and pushing toward a better world in which we are all allowed to feel, and to strive, and to work, and to live and love together.

"What has Feminism done to end the suffering of Women?"

The world has changed a lot for women because of the women’s movement. Until 36 years ago, there were legal state laws designating a husband "head and master" with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife. 37 years ago, it was not illegal for a man to rape his wife – no matter how brutally. 39 years ago, it was legal to fire a woman for being pregnant in the U.S. 97 years ago, women weren’t allowed to vote in the U.S. Now, these are just examples from our country, but it does put quite a bit into context. It is also interesting that the Equal Rights Amendment which states that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex," despite being introduce multiple times and passed by congress in 1972 died in 1982 because it was not ratified by 38 states.

"What has Feminism done to increase the suffering of men, women, or children?"

This is an interesting question. I do not believe that feminism itself has increased the suffering of anyone. However, the fight over whether to support feminism, and what that support means certainly has. There is a belief among many that to have a strong family, a strong marriage, and thus a strong society, we must reject feminism. If I understand the argument, the belief is that if women are outside the home and away from the family, then everyone suffers. People yearn for earlier times when mother was at home with the children and the nuclear family was strong. The truth is, that in colonial time and earlier – mother always worked outside the home (tending the field, preserving food etc.) and spent far less time with children than modern working mothers do. As for the brief time in mid 20th century America, that was not as we paint it either. The truth is, few modern families could afford a single income family, and, if they could, there is no reason biologically (after weaning) to preference the mother over the father. That is a decision for each family to make. There is no suffering inherently attached to regarding everyone as equals. The suffering comes from the false dilemma of believing the only way to preserve our relationships is by going backward instead of forward.