Given the negative connotations the word “feminist” has been maligned to evoke in the minds of too many people, I have come up with a new word that captures the worthy sentiment of equal rights and opportunity originally intended: equalist. (Please note that, treating people equally still does not mean, treating them the same.)
(Update 08.05.09)
TNA asked for more suggestions, of words that could replace “feminism,” positing it might have been irrevocably tarnished. I came up with this. For the movement: Shequalism. For the picket signs: She the People.
jbjd 
The whole idea of Feminism had,and has nothing to do with equality,nor would coming up with new terminology.The way any group,race, or gender of people are treated in society is predicated on the moral roots of any given culture. http://www.newswithviews.com/NWO/newworld22.htm
Kim: I have no idea how your comment relates to the sentiment expressed in my post that feminism has become a tainted word but, since it did not appear to me to be offensive, I posted it. ADMINISTRATOR
Speaking of equality…..
I am wondering if the democrat aristocrats in the congress might be shooting themselves in the foot by passing legislation requiring citizens to purchase/acquire health insurance. If it, by law, becomes a demand/requirement/mandate of citizens, under threat of fine or imprisonment, to purchase or acquire health insurance from a government insurance providing agency, questions of constitutionality notwithstanding, wouldn’t “equal treatment under the law” require the congress, federal and state bureaucrats, and members of the executive and oligarchical branches of both state and federal government to comply with the same law? …..Even if a so-called “trigger” provision is included in the mandate. Once the so-called “trigger” provision is “tripped”, wouldn’t the same law apply to everyone?
Can congress or the oligarchs constitutionally “exempt” themselves or others once the mandate activates?
Gordon: Excellent question about equal protection. The theory is, all laws as written will be enforced equally. Thus, if a federal law requires every citizen to purchase health insurance, for example then, as citizens, members of Congress would be required to purchase health insurance. However, members of Congress already get health insurance from ‘their’ employer. As for exempting themselves from laws they pass, Congress has a history of doing just that. (Look it up.) Finally, as I understand, the ‘trigger’ mechanism that has been recently devised refers to a public option that will automatically kick in if insurance companies fail to meet certain standards of coverage. ADMINISTRATOR