Two or three people have asked me in the past couple of weeks about my statement in the newsletter that I consider myself "a radical feminist". They pointed out to me that certain conventions or technical word usages have been established within the feminist movement and that according to those conventions or usages "radical feminist" means extreme, probably lesbian, and quite possibly rejecting as much contact with men as possible. "Do you really consider yourself a radical feminist in these senses?" my callers wanted to know. "And if not, why are you confusing us by using the word `radical'?"

Generally speaking I see my job as helping to clarify ideas rather than muddle them further. But my use of the word "radical" did raise questions in some of your minds, and I love it when you come to a service with a questioning attitude. Not only that, it forced me to try to explain to my questioners, and to you now, what I mean by the word, and how my usage differs from, or conforms to, the feminist movement's conventions.

By "radical" I mean "at root", "underneath", "in my deepest being". This is actually the first meaning given in my Random House dictionary: "going to the roots or origins of a matter", and the second definition is "thoroughgoing or extreme". My kind of feminism goes to the roots and origins of the status of women, and I believe it's thoroughgoing, too. But it differs from what some people call radical feminism in that while I have complete respect for a lesbian sexual orientation, I believe one can be at the same time a feminist and heterosexual, and I do not want to cut off relationships of any positive kind with men, any more than with women.

Here, in a nutshell, is how I see women's status as it has evolved to the present and how I hope it will continue to evolve. I believe that women have had a lower status than men in most societies throughout history, and that this has been primarily for biological reasons. I believe the biological basis for women's inequality has only been overcome in the past century or so, and that the changes which are now taking place are so enormous that it's not in the least surprising there are problems and dissensions involved. The changes taking place in women's status are radical in all the senses -- going to the root, thoroughgoing, extreme -- and they affect society at all levels. No wonder it's all difficult to cope with. It's like going from the Ice Age to global warming within a century, instead of over millenia with stages in between.

The two developments in human history which have forever changed the situation of women in relation to men are, I believe, the industrial revolution and (a major sub-revolution) the development of reliable birth control methods. I believe the reasons for women's social inequality with men in the past have been their lesser average physical strength and the fact that they bear children -- both of which are facts, unrelated to any conspiracy on men's part and largely unrelated to any future role for women. Technology and reproductive control have made muscle strength and childbearing irrelevant to sexual equality.

I've not been personally especially attracted to or convinced by the strand within feminism which sees men as conscious and deliberate oppressors of women. I think there were very good reasons for a division of roles in society when biology really was destiny. When women were pregnant most of the time, and smaller and frailer than men, on average, in a world which needed size and strength, it was natural, not evil, that men would be more valued and play the decisive roles in everything unrelated to children.

That reality doesn't exist any longer, not here at least, in the industrialized western world. We live in a society in which, as most of us have discovered, small children of either sex can operate the computers which control our reality at least as efficiently as their 200lb fathers. We live in a world in which women can decide whether or not to have children, and when, and how many. We live in a world which urgently needs to come to terms with these new realities -- and that is why I am a feminist. I am a feminist because women are equal to men now, and if that equality is not recognized or accepted in a radical, thoroughgoing way, we're mistreating half the human race and cheating ourselves of their potential.

Some of the things which I think still need to be done to recognize and accept and encourage women's equality have the character of affirmative action, and this is what makes many people nervous, in just the same way that affirmative action targeted to racial minorities or to same-sex relationships makes some of us nervous. I said that I don't accept the conspiracy explanation of women's past inequality, and I'm not eager to believe that men want to interfere with women's equality now, but I do think there's considerable resistance -- understandable but not acceptable -- to the full and complete integration of women into what has hitherto been a men's world.

This is the resistance that's met with whenever a group of people is required to give up some of their privilege, to share their power with a previously powerless group: it's almost never done willingly. (We see that clearly in the resistance to legislation giving spousal rights to same-sex couples, for instance.) But this is the point at which, I believe, the question of right and wrong clearly emerges. There's not much blame attached in my mind to men's wielding power over women in the past, except of course in cases of cruelty which is always inexcusable. But men (and women) are to be held accountable, I think, for their failures now to encourage the full participation of women in society on absolutely equal terms with men, even when that full participation requires making up for past inequality by affirmative action of various kinds.

Things will probably be unbalanced for a while, guys, while we bring the social structure into line with the reality of women's equal ability to take the reins in every area, from plumbing to politics. There will be more women than men in this pulpit for a while, probably, because we're catching up on many years of being excluded from pulpits and other ways of being heard. There may well be preference given to hiring women for work which is non-traditional for them, simply because it is non-traditional and we need to catch up as quickly as possible. I often hear people say that hiring should always be done on the basis of who's best for the job -- on the basis of qualification, not sex. Fine.

Once equality is fully established, we won't need affirmative action, but for now let's just recognize that being female is one of the prime qualifications for any job which has been traditionally held only by men in the past. Femaleness itself is a valid qualification for many things now, to be weighed along with education, experience and skill. To be a woman rightly gives you an advantage in the selection process, because choosing a woman is helping to make the day-to-day workings of the world consistent with what we believe.

Each of us has to choose our particular social causes, because none of us can take on the righting of every injustice in the world and have any hope of success. It seems to me natural and right that it should be mainly women who take on the feminist cause, just as it's right that any disadvantaged people -- physically, racially or economically -- should be the primary fighters for advantage. I don't really expect men to be at the forefront of feminism, eagerly handing over all their historical privileges to women, any more than I expect rich people to go out looking for ways to give away their money -- except when there's a tax advantage. And I think it makes perfect sense for the Welcoming Congregation Committee to be made up of people with a personal interest in making our congregation more welcoming, although that may well include people outside the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups.

I don't even expect all women to take on the whole of the feminist cause, let alone all men, because changing the entrenched assumptions and attitudes of all our human history is an absolutely mammoth task. But I think its a reasonable expectation that intelligent men will see the light in relation to women's equality and to do their best to recognize that whatever positions of privilege they still occupy in relation to women cannot continue. And I think it's reasonable for intelligent women to see the light regarding themselves and their worth and to take on just as much as they can of the burden of the world's responsibilities. Don't misunderstand me, please. I think choosing to stay home with young children, if you have the luxury of that option, is a fine choice. Each of us needs to choose the particular task we'll assume, much as we'd like to avoid any more work in our busy lives. Let me tell you a little bit now about the areas in which I have chosen to align myself with the feminist cause. They largely involve "consciousness-raising" -- an honourable phrase from feminism's mid-20th century phase.

When I was a young wife expecting my first child, in 1962, I was extremely eager to have a son. To me, while having a baby was wonderful in itself, there would be something extra special if my first was a boy. When it turned out to be a girl (followed by two more girls in fairly quick succession, and no boys) I found myself having to confront my feelings about the relative value of the sexes. Thank God I was forced into that thinking, forced into questioning whether the outlook I'd inherited (and which is still hugely at work in much of the world today) was really valid. Thank God for my three daughters, who have probably been more responsible than anything else for my current commitment to feminism.

Thank God, too, for Betty Friedan, who wrote The Feminine Mystique at exactly the right time to help my thinking along, and who enabled me to recognize that the wonderful luxury of choosing to stay home with my children and keep house was not only an enormous privilege but one which, for a woman not particularly suited to full-time mothering, could easily degenerate into competitive housecleaning and preoccupation with trivia. Betty Friedan raised my consciousness to the point at which I knew I must develop a working life of my own once my children were all in school and gave me the basis for making all my future decisions with reference not to what was traditional but to what made the best use of my abilities.

Now, I've been very much a woman of my time, and hardly ever ahead of it in any notable ways. I've had to be pushed by some force beyond myself into each one of the stands I've ending up taking to assert my independence of men, because it hasn't come naturally to me at all. My father was a very dominating personality in my childhood home, and I grew up with an acceptance of being taken care of and not having to fend very much for myself. Fortunately, I had enough of Dad's genes in me that I rebelled against his authority -- I came to feminism mainly out of a refusal to be told what to do, rather than a rejection of male protectiveness. I married a good man who never told me what to do, but who did take care of me, and had it not been for the break-up of my marriage I would probably never have thrown off the role of protected weaker sex.

Now, at a distance of fifteen years from the pain of my divorce, I can say "Thank God" for the events which forced me to learn independence. There are many women who can do it within marriage, and I applaud and admire them -- I'm certainly not against the institution of marriage, though I don't see why it should be limited to heterosexuals -- but I don't think I would ever have been completely my own person if I'd stayed a wife. It's certainly extremely unlikely that I would have become a minister at all, let alone a minister in an area geographically removed from my children, if I hadn't divorced.

The husbands who will relocate to follow their wives' careers are still few and far between. And the reasons are practical ones: the men still, on average, earn more money, so their careers take precedence. We have quite a way to go before the decision about where to live is just as likely to consider a woman's work as a man's. I don't think we'll be truly liberated as women until that happens. It would be wonderful if it didn't wait till women earn as much, too -- if it were a decision based more on fulfilment than money.

There's a symbolic as well as a practical effect when a man takes his turn at being a woman's follower, in the matter of careers or in other areas, and the symbolic effect is often even more important and far-reaching than the practical one. When a man subordinates his career or other needs to those of a woman in visible ways, he's making a gesture which affects more than him or her or their family. He's saying to the world, "There's no good reason why it should always be my wife who does the adjusting; there's no good reason why women should always accommodate themselves to men."

I think it's magnificent when men make such symbolic statements, and that their effect is profound. But, my sisters, we don't need to wait for them to do it. There are many important symbolic statements that we can make, as well as the practical ones of becoming independent. For example (and this is the area I'll concentrate on in the time that's left because to me this is absolutely vital to the feminist cause, I believe) we can watch our language very carefully. Language both reflects and affects our reality, I'm quite convinced, and it's hardly ever a minor matter. I'm going to suggest to you some of the things I believe every one of us can incorporate into the way we speak which will radically affect the way both we and those who hear us will perceive the world. These things are bigger than they may seem!

I invite you to consider, if you don't already do it, being scrupulous in avoiding masculine words when you mean to include women. "Men" may once have meant everyone, but that was a time when women didn't have a vote either -- a man's vote was assumed to include his wife's. Today, "men" means men and not women, and "he" means he and not she, and you need to use a more inclusive form. Plurals are useful, and I'd rather trample on grammar than on human sensitivities. People a little more extreme, or perhaps just less lazy, than me use a "y" in the word "womyn" to make it clear that they don't think womyn are derived from men. I respect that, though I usually forget to do it.

I suggest it's best never to say, if you're married, "I'll have to ask my husband (or my wife) about that." You may only mean you need to check your mutual calendar, but you can say that. The implication that you need to seek permission or approval is a terrible perpetuation of the idea that one person has authority over another. I've heard more than one woman say, quite recently, "My husband would never let me do such-and-such" and I cringe. No-one needs a spouse's permission except in the case of joint ownership of property. If you mean you don't want to upset your spouse, why not say that instead? It doesn't seem to make sense to talk in terms of permission if you believe men and women are equal. Men too: when you talk about your wife letting you out to play golf or whatever, even though you may know you're joking, you're perpetuating the image and reality of the world in which women's power was limited to nagging and henpecking her husband. Nagging and henpecking are stereotypical terms derogatory to women, and so is the idea behind them.

That title "Mrs.": it perpetuates the idea that the primary aspect of your identity is that you're married. Men have always been "Mr.", whether or not they're married, and women don't need to be distinguished from one another in that way either. It took a while for "Ms." to catch on, but enough of us persisted in using it, and now it doesn't even raise any eyebrows and those of us who like raising eyebrows have to move on to other things. Dispensing with titles altogether is probably the next logical step. Just as "woman" is a good enough word that we can put "lady" on the back burner in most contexts, I think our names are respectable enough alone without Ms. or Mr. or Rev. or Dr. or any other title to give them dignity.

I encourage any woman I know who's getting married not to change her name. This is, to me, such a simple and obvious thing and yet it meets with more resistance than any other feminist stand I take -- and I think more from women than from men. Most of the brides at the weddings I do politely dismiss my suggestion that they keep their own name. "It's tradition", they say, or "I want to take his name." What does this symbolize? I put it to you that the only possible symbolic meaning is the submersion of a woman's identity in a man's and that is not right. I like officiating at weddings, but now and then I've considered whether I should agree to do it only if the bride agrees not to change her name. Occasionally they'll both hyphenate, which isn't a bad compromise; once in a million blue moons the groom will change his name to the bride's -- why does this seem so extraordinary, why?!?! If the name change is for the purpose of recognizing a new family unit, it makes just as much sense to reverse the tradition and would be an excellent form of affirmative action.

I consider myself a radical feminist because I believe that our everyday life and language and customs must reflect the conviction to which we all give lip-service, the conviction that women are equal to men in worth and abilities and that they should not be barred by reason of their sex alone from any privilege or area of life open to men. I'm also radical in the sense that these things are very important to me, not the kind of thing that I take lightly. Just as many of our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender friends get all steamed up about something like the Welcoming Congregation, when people respond to my comments about language by saying that these are trivial or insignificant matters, I find myself getting angry, because these are my deep convictions.

And it wouldn't help to tell me I'm cute when I'm mad: I'm not, I'm a very difficult person to like when I'm mad. I think of how it must have felt to people of colour to be called "niggers"; I imagine how it felt to black men to be called "boy"; I try to understand what it's like to be called a "faggot"; I know how it feels to this late-middle-aged woman to be referred to as a girl. Not good. I think of the suffragettes, a century ago, and how they were probably most unpleasant in their aggressive feminism, chaining themselves to railings, dressing like men, refusing to meet society's expectations of women, and I'm so grateful to them for making it much easier for us, though it's still not altogether easy, for those of us who like to be liked!

But I said in the newsletter that I'm not angry about the past and present so much as hopeful about the future. That's because I know from inside all the things which work in favour of the status quo -- the comfort of being protected, the difficulty of giving up power and privilege, the familiarity of the way things were -- and I see that it's changing anyway. It's changing because women really are equal, and because uncountable women and men have been, and are, brave enough to surrender comfort and privilege in order to bring about justice. It's changing because feminism, deep-down radical feminism, going to the roots of our reality, is a movement whose time has come and which will not be stopped. There are thousands of years behind us of a man's world, but the world coming into being now is a world of women and men together; I wouldn't have it any other way and I hope you wouldn't either.

I'll conclude by recalling that the first of our sevenUnitarian Universalist Principles affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and the second affirms justice, equity and compassion in human relations. If worth and dignity and justice and equity were commonplace, we would not need to affirm them in our Principles. They are high ideals for which we must strive. They are as imperfectly realized in the area of gender relations and sexual equality as in any other area of human life. But they are worth striving for with all the energy we can muster. And that's why I am a feminist.