Not only do I not know how to answer the question, Are you a feminist?, but it's got to the point where I'm not even sure what the word means. I've come to the conclusion that feminism needs to be saved from the feminists.

Look around and you'll see what I mean: Some feminists believe in equal treatment, regardless of gender. But other feminists believe women have special needs and concerns that society must take into account. Then again, some feminists say women should stop acting like the "weaker" sex. Yet, other feminists think special "feminine" qualities like nurturing and non-aggressiveness are exactly what society should honor instead of the death-dealing "masculine" traits. Not to mention those feminists (a small but vocal minority) who consider all varieties of heterosexual intercourse, including what most folks call "consensual sex," to be a form of rape!

As if all this in-house fighting were not trouble enough, official feminism has now added hypocrisy to the list of off-putting features. After lobbying for years to regulate sexual activity in the workplace, they've decided the rules don't apply to President Clinton, because he supported their efforts to make his kind of office dalliance a federal offense!

So selective - and irrational - are they in deciding whom to rake over the coals for hanky-panky, that a woman like Senator Boxer of California, who led the fight to oust Bob Packwood from the Senate (despite his support for the feminist agenda), is now defending a president whose strategy involves getting the public to ignore serious charges of perjury and obstruction-of-justice by claiming that it's "only" about a "trivial" matter like sex in the workplace.

But disapproving of some feminists' pronouncements or personalities does not prevent me from appreciating feminism in general and the justice of its claims. Oddly, I find myself agreeing, at least in part, with what might be called its two "rival" schools: "Equality" and "Difference."

In her insightful book "Woman Suffrage and Women's Rights" (New York University Press, 308 pages, $18.50), UCLA history professor Ellen Carol DuBois explains the split between the two sides: one emphasizing the importance of equality, the other celebrating the qualities that make women different from men. "Difference feminism" got its start in France, and, according to Prof. DuBois, developed along lines that eventually called into question such "basic elements of progressive political theory as individualism, the desirability of expanded rights, and liberal thought itself." Taking her own stand on the side of "equality," Prof. DuBois notes that the claims of the "difference school" give old-fashioned male chauvinists just the kind of rationale needed to put the little woman back in the kitchen where she can "nurture" to her heart's content.

Also in the "equality" camp is Linda K. Kerber, a feminist historian at the University of Iowa. In her thought-provoking new book "No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship" (Farrar Straus & Giroux/ Hill & Wang, 405 pages, $25), she argues that for centuries, women's exemption from the obligations of citizenship was what made it seem permissible to deny them the rights of citizenship. A woman's duties, it was assumed, were to her husband rather than the state.

Thus, while men had civic obligations such as military service and jury duty, women were presumed to have duties only to their spouses and families.

Supporters of the setup pointed to the "privileges" that women gained in return for giving up their civic rights and responsibilities: to be treated as "ladies." But, as Prof. Kerber shows, down through the ages these "privileges" were more illusory than real, and served as excuses for depriving women of the right to vote, serve on juries and have control over their own bodies and property.

To turn to a book like Leonard Shlain's "The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image" (Viking, 464 pages, $24.95) is a kind of culture shock. Prof. Kerber offers carefully-reasoned arguments based on a close reading of feminist history and a respect for the principles of justice, equality and due process. Dr. Shlain invites us to do nothing less than re-examine the vast history of humankind on planet earth in the light of his far-out theory.

A surgeon at University of California, San Francisco Medical Center and author of a previous book about parallels between art and physics, Dr. Shlain is also one of the growing army of men committed to feminism, more specifically, a feminism that exalts "feminine" values.

Certainly, you don't have to belong to the "difference" school to recognize that most cultures in the world have valued "masculine" hunter-warrior traits, such as aggression, single-mindedness and competitiveness, while belittling "feminine" traits, such as tenderness, cooperation and love of beauty. (Little girls who like sports are welcomed as "tomboys," while little lads who play with dolls are derided as "sissies.")

But there was a time, according to Dr. Shlain, when societies revered the fertility goddess, and womanly values were the ones to have. "Around 1500 B.C.," he writes, "there were hundreds of goddess-based sects enveloping the Mediterranean basin. By the fifth century A.D. they had been eradicated, by which time women were also prohibited from conducting a single Western sacrament." Many have sought to explain why. Dr. Shlain blames the alphabet.

The very acts of reading and writing, he hypothesizes, got people using much more of the left side of their brain. The leftbrain, he tells us, is responsible for logic, mathematics, literacy, willing and doing, while the rightbrain is responsible for holistic things, like recognizing a familiar face, appreciating music and sensing the emotional overtones of a situation.

As literacy spread, the left-brain came to enjoy an unhealthy dominance over the poor old intuitive rightbrain. But now, thanks to television, movies and computer screens, there's reason to believe that the music-loving, tender-hearted right brain will become a much stronger partner.

Flaky as this may sound, Dr. Shlain mounts an argument that is at times surprisingly persuasive - or, at least, entertaining. Taking us on a whirlwind tour of cultures around the globe, he points out what he feels certain is more than a coincidence between the sudden onset of literacy in previously illiterate societies and outbreaks of intolerance and violence.

In 10th century China, the crippling custom of binding women's feet coincided with the spread of printing. Printing in Europe was followed by witch-burning. No sooner did the largely illiterate populations of 19th century Russia and 20th century east Asia start reading than lo and behold: the Soviet Gulag, the Cambodian killing fields, and the horrors of Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and "The Little Red Book"!

Dr. Shlain does take note of one ghastly instance of the opposite effect: when the literate, rational Germans gave vent to their long-repressed irrational side in image-rich torchlight parades and frenzied worship of Hitler. I'd say this constitutes a fairly strong counter-example to Dr. Shlain's mantra, words are bad, icons are good!

Nor does he seem to have considered the possibility that the violence and intolerance he detests are triggered, not by literacy, but by the shock and dislocation of any sudden change. (For, if images unleash female power, why was the Third Reich far more anti-woman than the Soviet Union?) Dr. Shlain himself admits at his conclusion that he has perhaps over-praised the merits of the emotional and intuitive at the expense of objectivity and reason, which, after all, are responsible for much that is good.

Still, if we're headed for a world where "masculine" and "feminine" qualities are better integrated in men and women alike, I look forward to it. As recently as 1962, Congress passed a law prohibiting women from being sent on space missions. Jerrie Cobb, then a candidate for the program, lost her chance.

Thanks to the efforts of equality feminists, the very idea of such a ban now strikes most Americans as laughable. Yet, we still make a huge fuss of someone like John Glenn, who at the time supported the ban, while we take little heed of someone like Ms. Cobb, who has since been active in flying medical supplies to indigenous peoples in the rain forest. Perhaps it is time to re-examine our balance of values as well as reaffirm our commitment to equality.

Merle Rubin writes for the Christian Science Monitor, the Wal Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, among others. She has a doctorate in English from the University of Virginia and studied English as an undergraduate at Smith College and Yale University.

Pub Date: 11/15/98