> Often rightly so? You're dangerously close to making sense here, but I've never heard, nor can relate to, a man holding a door for a woman because he suspects she cannot do so herself.
>

True, as you go on to explain. It's not really that the man in question has the idea clearly spelled out in his mind: "the woman needs me to open the door for her because she can't do it for herself." But the idea of the less-capable female is somewhere in there, dilute though it may be. It is the covert presence of an unequal estimation of female worth and ability to which the feminist (in its original sense) objects.

> Did you pick your name? Did I pick mine? Did I, or any members of my race, choose the name by which it should go? Has any race in the history of mankind (the gender neutral meaning of "mankind") up until fifty years ago (or whatever) ever chosen their own names? If there are, and I can't think of any, it's the exception, not the rule.
>

Well, so far as I know, groups of people have always named themselves, even if only to call their group "the people" in their own language, as so many Native American cultures did.

> I'm not even sure that races have chosen their names in modern times -- rather, the acceptable PC terms today seem to be terms agreed upon by members of ALL races as being the most comfortable to use.
>

Probably true. I don't really feel the need to appeal to historical precedent, though, to make the case that the ability to choose what you will be called is an empowering privilege (pardon the psychobabble) for any people-group, even if the power is mostly psychological. That's really the only point that I would want to defend.

> So on this point, I have to adopt the completely opposite point of view: that it's the assumption that races *should* be allowed to choose their own names that's the cause of half the problem, particularly since it changes so often, and not everybody seems to be able to agree on the same name at the same time anyway.
>

Also true, and in that case the right protocol would be determined by the individual member of the group that one currently faces. Not all black people (to continue the previous example) might agree that "African-American" is the best term, but if the black person I'm conversing with wants to be called that, then I don't need a consensus of the community to know what the courteous thing to do is: I'll use the term that that individual prefers. That's all I'm saying, in a nutshell.

> > And there's not a single good substitute for plain old respect and common courtesy, dispensed in generous doses.
>
> Certainly not, and despite the points I chose to respond to, I do agree with the bulk of your post and wish more did.
>

And I certainly value your agreement, whitey. (heh,heh)

Iss "soul man" achar