Feminism holds the ability to alienate men, naturally, but sometimes, even women.

When I ran into one of my professors outside of class, I asked if she had read Ayn Rand. I had asked because Rand's first novel was actually very complementary to the revolution we study in class. She acknowledged familiarity with the name. Then she smirked. "Isn't that the book with the rape scene," she queried, shaking her head.

She referred to a different novel written by the same author, which I had not intended to discuss. But that book, too, is fascinating. Complex characters, a gripping story spanning 694 pages, a triumphant, philosophical conclusion -- but she fixated on this particular scene.

For the first time, I saw this intelligent, extremely capable woman articulate words that were emotionally driven and irrational.

The alleged rape? As the author herself had eloquently put it, it was a scene depicting ''spiritual strength and self-confidence, not physical violence.'' It was a passionate love scene that established the romantic affair between the hero and the heroine.

The book is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. The hero is pursued by the beautiful, powerful Dominique for a length of time before the two consummate their attraction. It is the author's deliberate intention to establish this love affair with an explosive tone. The characters manipulate the encounter to fit their desires. They are playing, and the encounter symbolizes their entire relationship.

After the scene, Rand writes, ''She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied.'' Not rape. It is a sexual encounter between two consenting adults, both very much thrilled by the conquest.

But this passes through a feminist filter as sexual violence. Because women are doomed to a lifetime of oppression, I suppose. I hate the concept of sexual violence as much as the next girl, but let's not allow irrationality to dominate a scholarly discussion.

Because, it was this irrationality which left me standing, dumbfounded, in front of one of the most knowledgeable, respectable professors of my academic career, who dismissed the entire work on one alleged rape scene.

Of all sectors of our society, academia should be the last to engage in this type of reactionary behavior. Our professors, ideally, would be paid to step back and intellectually use the academic license.

Not to write off a critically acclaimed author for one misinterpreted scene.

Whether or not my professor is actually feminist is irrelevant. But it definitely got me thinking about what the many goals of the many schools feminism are. There are several schools of feminism. Liberal feminism challenges traditional sex roles.

Conservative feminists, however, do not oppose the traditional, nurturing role of women. Radical feminists have an affinity for identifying patriarchy and attempt to dismantle the oppression which, they argue, is fundamental to capitalism.

Feminism began with women suffragists, continuing on to challenge traditional sex roles. Feminists have undoubtedly earned their place in history, righteously fighting for civil rights, birth control rights. And some argue that some reform remains.

So obviously, "feminism" is not a catch-all for those whose agenda calls for the empowerment of women; feminists are prone to disagree with one another.

Some advice for all feminists -- agree to find, and honor, rationality. Don't allow radicalism to eat away the substance of an argument.

We have to acknowledge our progress, I think, without using tactics such as affirmative action. It's an issue of social, not political nature, yet some argue differently. I don't believe radical feminism to belong in the political arena.

So one argument is that there aren't enough female lawmakers?

A quick Internet search brought up that 6 percent of Cabinet members have been women. A fraction of Congress is female.

In the Supreme Court, women have comprised an even tinier portion. Roughly 20 percent of federal judges are female. And women comprise about a tenth of the nation's governors. Anyone would agree these numbers to be low. But who has the nerve to honestly ask the most basic, fundamental question: What is stopping women from running for office?

In my opinion, it's more to do with women themselves than any oppressive patriarchal system. No one is preventing women from pursuing government positions. No one, that is, except women themselves. Has anyone heard Condelezza Rice whine about how difficult her career achievements have been?

Let's examine a stunning fault in the nationally covered case of Brian Nichols. A former linebacker, his handcuffs were dismantled by a tiny, female deputy nearly 20 years his senior.

He overpowered her, took her keys and obtained a gun. In the following hours, he killed several people, took several hostage and pulled off several carjackings. Sometimes it seems that empowerment is misused, holding the potential to cause more damage than good. I would submit the Nichols incident as proof.

Feminism has been a positive force in our society for decades; it seems that these "founding mothers," if you will, got the ball rolling, and now it's rolling out of control. Feminism shouldn't trump intellectual discourse.

The search for real solutions to real problems is on, and we need to rediscover extremely practical decision making about how to maintain safety in a courtroom.

There's feminism. There is politically correct feminism. And then there's stupidity.