Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Martina

One of the reasons gender studies started investigating masculinity -- and this was at least twenty years ago -- was that the masculine and the male were considered the baseline, the ur gender, the the model of humanness. There needed to be an historical and cross-cultural understanding of how masculinity and maleness were constructed IN ORDER to destabilize the binary, in order to understand that the idea of male identity, especially in psychoanalysis and medicine, was not a stable social fact.

Those who began by investigating the construct of maleness seem to have ended by fetishizing it instead. It's quite clear to me that although the intent may have once been to destabilise the gender binary, gender studies have had great success in promoting it.

Is there something transgressive about a female bodied person claiming that they are male because they resemble traditional males? Isn't that just saying that those who look and act traditionally male must BE male? What happened to dismantling assumptions about traditionally gendered behaviours?

I've been a gender transgressor for my entire lifetime. When I was six years old I boycotted the Flintstones, refusing to watch them because of the ridged gender stereotypes the show promoted. I started riding motorcycles in 1981. I instruct riders at the racetrack. I've made a living at various times as a carpenter and general contractor. Without any friends or family in the business, I earned a union card in the Stagehands Union in the mid 1980s. It's an infamously sexist and bigoted union, and 1986 was an inauspicious time for that sort of pioneering.

I've fought that war with my own body, too. I've been the object of unwanted sexual attention from men from my earliest memory. When a strong beard sprouted on my chin in my mid twenties, the attention magically disappeared. What a relief! I suddenly was free from daily verbal rape. I unselfconsciously wore my beard, along with my hairy legs, with my vintage dresses and high heeled shoes. I reasoned that anyone I wanted to know wouldn't care about my beard, or they might even admire my courage. I didn't shave it off until I was in my early 30s.

I did all of the above AS A WOMAN. I did the above declaring loudly all the while, "THIS IS WHAT A WOMAN LOOKS LIKE".

That's what it looks like to dismantle the gender binary in my world.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Those who began by investigating the construct of maleness seem to have ended by fetishizing it instead. It's quite clear to me that although the intent may have once been to destabilise the gender binary, gender studies have had great success in promoting it.

Is there something transgressive about a female bodied person claiming that they are male because they resemble traditional males? Isn't that just saying that those who look and act traditionally male must BE male? What happened to dismantling assumptions about traditionally gendered behaviours?

i do not know what has been happening in gender studies in recent years. For all i know you are right. i am not your foil in this argument. i was making a point about how the departments arose, why masculinity studies emerged and were seen as important.

[Kobi]

I am very grateful for this dialogue. It is giving words to what I have been feeling internally. It has felt very important to me to reclaim female, woman, feminism, and lesbianism in their purest forms. Now I am beginning to grasp why it is so important to me.

Has feminism as a social movement died? Turned into a debate with competing theories? There must be some group, somewhere that is action oriented.

[Heart]

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Heart

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

I also agree with some things you said, Heart, but it seems as though the right has succeeded in its attempt to divide and conquer.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Hunter Green

I also agree with some things you said, Heart, but it seems as though the right has succeeded in its attempt to divide and conquer.

Hi, Hunter Green. I'm glad you joined the conversation.

It's not just the "right" who has succeeded in its attempts to divide and conquer. We've done it to ourselves by placing certain subjects off limits for discussion. It's as Heart said:

Originally Posted by Heart

....gender theory, at least as enacted in queer communities, seems to lack any political analysis of institutionalized power....

There is is no analysis of institutionalized power in gender theory.

Analysis of gender theory isn't tolerated in most quarters.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Those who began by investigating the construct of maleness seem to have ended by fetishizing it instead. It's quite clear to me that although the intent may have once been to destabilize the gender binary, gender studies have had great success in promoting it....

As if there wasn't enough fetishizing of maleness to begin with ! ! ! !

Creating terms like "masculine of center" does not destabilize the gender binary, it reinforces it. How many people outside of the LGBTQ community (or, inside of it for that matter) make a distinction between maleness and masculine? I mean, REALLY.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

...Is there something transgressive about a female bodied person claiming that they are male because they resemble traditional males? Isn't that just saying that those who look and act traditionally male must BE male? What happened to dismantling assumptions about traditionally gendered behaviours?....

This statement cuts to the core of the issue, doesn't it....

In the absence of a epistemological consideration of gender theory, all that can be said of it is that it's a self-justifying, inaccessible, meme that reinforces stereotypes. There is nothing remotely transgressive about that.


meme = information held in an individual's mind, which is passed on to another individual's mind.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?

[Chazz]

CherylNYC, I, too, have been a gender transgressor my entire life.

In recent years, I've felt like an exile caught in the cross hairs of two competing, though disconcertingly similar, gender binaries - hetero-normity and queer-normity.

If hetero-patriarchists and queer theorists, alike, see me as transgressive because of my buzz cut, skinny jeans and Harley boots.... where do I go to be seen as gender congruent woman?

[Kobi]

Thanks for the links.

I am having a bit of trouble articulating what i am looking for.

The purity I am seeking isnt in a movement per se. It is purity in getting back to myself. Have had to compromise a bit much of myself of late. I was referring to getting back to my roots.

Originally Posted by Heart

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Those who began by investigating the construct of maleness seem to have ended by fetishizing it instead. It's quite clear to me that although the intent may have once been to destabilise the gender binary, gender studies have had great success in promoting it.

Is there something transgressive about a female bodied person claiming that they are male because they resemble traditional males? Isn't that just saying that those who look and act traditionally male must BE male? What happened to dismantling assumptions about traditionally gendered behaviours?

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist.

Originally Posted by Heart

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

This is merely to say that feminism is a movement made of people who came to feminism with their own predilections and cultural baggage intact. Given the time period where NOW was formed, it would have been remarkable if feminism had *not* had a non-trivial amount of racism, certainly, and homophobia. This is not to excuse anything, it is merely to remind that people are products--to some greater or lesser degree--of their time and the movements they spawn are also products of that time.

Cheers
Aj

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist....


Cheers
Aj

This is one of the most obvious contradictions of the gender theory bandwagon. I shake my head in disbelief every time I meet a young person who I would peg as butch, who I find claims a male ID and then talks about how transgressive it is to do so. The young person inevitably then goes on to try to prove how 'male' they are by enumerating all of the ways they fit into a traditionally male stereotype. I think it must be a case of the Emperor's new clothes that others fail to point out the obvious.

This is a subject near and dear to me. That said, I feel a little guilty going on an extended tear about the way male IDed people who, in another time, would likely have been lesbians and are now not making sense to me. No matter where my lesbian ID falls in the world of fashionable theorising, my ID isn't changing. We're talking about pride in that ID. Those who've eschewed the ID of which I'm proud may or may not make sense to me, but that doesn't change who I am.

The academic pendulum is probably swinging back. It always does. Those whose work was considered young and edgy are abandoned for the next hot theorizer. Needless to say, the new theory doesn't have to make any more sense than the old ones. It's like any other fashion, it just has to be fresh. Academics make their careers by coming up with something that seems new and interesting. That's cold comfort for a young person struggling with their ID, but I have no influence over those who treat human ID as a game through which they can make career splash. I'll just keep offering huge, loud support for butch lesbian women.

[Kobi]

Heart,

I am hoping words will not be as difficult for me today but no promises here.

To me, I remember feminism as both a macro and mirco level endeavor. Until women had "their consciousness" raised on a macro level, the mirco level of the manifestations of their oppression couldn't be put in its proper perspective or addressed on the multiple levels that would seem logical.

With people being people, I dont expect a movement as such to be immune from the foibles of being human. I also see including every single possible variation in women as statistically impossible.

Also, being people with differing realities i.e. race, religion, sexual orientation, class etc I dont expect a totally cohesive approach to anything. People are most concerned with and have an easier time relating to that which most affects them on a day to day basis.

It seems to me that sometimes we cant see the forest because our view is obscured by all the trees. The trees are very important but so is the forest. If we lose sight of the forest, how successful can the trees be?

When I do an internet search and find a lot of stuff on the trees i.e. the many ways in which sexism and misogyny is a reality for women all across the globe it is good. It seems to me, we have become very focused on the trees to the detriment of the forest.

The divisiveness is a boon to that which you are ultimately fighting against.

When I do a search on the forest and am drawing, to me, a blank, I get concerned. When gender theory, which seems very male oriented to me, seeks to surpass or undermine feminism, I get concerned.

In the same way, I get concerned when I cant find "womanspace". I define this as a place when women go to be with other women period.

I see a lot of effort directed at cooperation, compromise, lets all be one happy family. It sets off all kinds of red flags for me.

We, as women, have a very complex, complicated and funky coexistence with all things male or masculine. There is a very different dynamic between women exchanging energy in a butch femme community, and the male-female energy exchange in the same community. The mixture leads, to me, to a different dynamic for everyone invloved. And, it feels odd.

When I see "lesbian" websites welcoming males - not just transmen but heterosexual cismen, it makes me wonder. When I see chat rooms owned by young gay women open to gay, lesbian, straight...I wonder. When I see young women who seem ok calling themselves gay but are hesistant to call themselves lesbian, I wonder.

There is something very wonky going on. And, from where I stand, it doesnt bode well for women or feminism or lesbianism given the direction it is going.

Seems to me, it is time to reclaim a lot of things, refocus on women, revisit consciousness raising, and just get back on track.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist.



This is merely to say that feminism is a movement made of people who came to feminism with their own predilections and cultural baggage intact. Given the time period where NOW was formed, it would have been remarkable if feminism had *not* had a non-trivial amount of racism, certainly, and homophobia. This is not to excuse anything, it is merely to remind that people are products--to some greater or lesser degree--of their time and the movements they spawn are also products of that time.
Cheers
Aj

Concerning racial variables with the Second Wave, I continue to be baffled at how our historical minds stop at these initial flawas instead of going further-

Many women of color took issue with the white, middle-class influence at that time with the movement and were very outspoken. They then brought issues of women of color to the discussion and widened (thankfully) this discussion and have since been a major force in feminist theory. This brought brown women to the table as well.

Social movements do exactly this- bring all of the variables out that need to be addressed. They are not static, nor are they perfect- just like individual people. Consciousness at one level gives rise to consciousness at other levels. Growth happens this way.

Yes, given the times (as was true of the First Wave), it was an imperfect movement. Yet, it gave rise to all voices because those voices realized there was a space in which to speak.

I get so tired of historical cherry picking. History needs to be studied with a fluid and open mind. I stood with many WOC "back then" that needed to add to the conversation and give it breadth. Actually, there were many WOC in the early days that spoke up.

[Heart]

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

[*Anya*]

"Because women's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

~Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but....... The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory.

Despite its problems, the tools of 2nd Wave Feminism were collectively liberating to all women. Even when women splintered off from the main body of Feminism to focus on oppressions of particular interest/importance to them, they took Feminism's "tools" with them. This is how Womanism, Lesbian Feminism, Third-world Feminism, Postcolonial Feminism, etc., were birthed. Thank HP for all of that.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Feminism is empowering and unifying even in its diversification - not solipsistic and individualistic like gender theory.

(Solipsism is the position that anything outside of ones mind is untrue. If a solipsist thinks or imagines something, it exists, objective, tangible reality be damned. Other people's reality be damned, too.)


I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

No, there are areas of those "days" that I cannot embrace. What I know is that without the Second Wave (and the days of my Grandmother before it), we would not be having this discussion at all. By definition, "movement" includes a change in place or position- it is not static, therefore, gives rise to critical thought throughout time- as time gives us new perspectives.

We have a feminist foundation that begs us to explore and grow even when we have to re-examine ourselves and accept the warts. It was the second Wave that brought awareness of gender theory to the forefront as a feminist paridigm.

Given this, it is difficult to accept that gender theory remains a block to the entire LGBTQ population continuing to remain separate. The irony I spoke of earlier and what is at the heart of deep wounds.

This has actually come full circle for me as a butch woman. The very same tactics and male power structures of "old" are wounding me in ways within our very own community using what the Second Wave believed to be a means to heal.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I am very grateful for this dialogue. It is giving words to what I have been feeling internally. It has felt very important to me to reclaim female, woman, feminism, and lesbianism in their purest forms. Now I am beginning to grasp why it is so important to me.

Has feminism as a social movement died? Turned into a debate with competing theories? There must be some group, somewhere that is action oriented.

Great post. Just the other day I was thinking about NOW and wondering if there even was a chapter nearby any longer. I happen to think that, globally speaking, there is a war raging against women that almost no one is acknowledging.

Does anyone even know who Gloria Steinem is? Or that ERA has nothing to do with baseball or real estate? Anyone remember the Lesbian Herstory Archives? How about "Sisterhood is Powerful"?

The right has so bastardized the term Feminist that many refuse to ID as a feminist, even though they believe in feminist ideals...as long as you don't call it "feminist". Argh.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Hunter Green

Great post. Just the other day I was thinking about NOW and wondering if there even was a chapter nearby any longer. I happen to think that, globally speaking, there is a war raging against women that almost no one is acknowledging.

Does anyone even know who Gloria Steinem is? Or that ERA has nothing to do with baseball or real estate? Anyone remember the Lesbian Herstory Archives? How about "Sisterhood is Powerful"?

The right has so bastardized the term Feminist that many refuse to ID as a feminist, even though they believe in feminist ideals...as long as you don't call it "feminist". Argh.

Well... I don't want to be oppositional, but NOW is one of those organizations that really had to work through its own homophobia and racism. NOW did not originally consider the voices of lesbians or women of color. In fact, the Lavender Menace was formed in 1970 to protest the exclusion of queer women from the feminist movement. Many feminists of Color are still having to carve out a voice in the feminist movement, especially in relation to issues of poverty. Femininsm is a notoriously white middle/upper-class movement.

I respect Gloria Steinem, but as recently as our last presidential election she wrote an editorial that constructed some problematic comparisons between Clinton and Obama in terms of which is worse - sexism or racism, and totally ignored the existance of women of color who deal with both. (Oppression olympics is a very bad idea.)

Nonetheless, NOW is still active and there is an upcoming PBS special about Steinem that I'm looking forward to seeing.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fierce feminist -- it's perhaps the most relevant social movement on the planet, but I feel that its important to keep a critical perspective.

Heart

[Jess]

me in blue, except the excerpt of yours I highlighted in red... I hope this isn't too confusing...

Originally Posted by Heart

Well... I don't want to be oppositional, but NOW is one of those organizations that really had to work through its own homophobia and racism. NOW did not originally consider the voices of lesbians or women of color. In fact, the Lavender Menace was formed in 1970 to protest the exclusion of queer women from the feminist movement. Many feminists of Color are still having to carve out a voice in the feminist movement, especially in relation to issues of poverty. Femininsm is a notoriously white middle/upper-class movement.

It is historically correct that it began from very privileged origins... with a half- joking nod, I think this is because they were the only ones with time and means to begin to organize. They shifted portions of the time devoted to "quilting bees" or their "husband approved" book clubs/etiquette classes/ etc to fighting for their rights and became incredibly visible during the Sufferage/ Prohibition era. The organizing efforts began years before, but they only became truly effectual during this period , approx. 1920- 1933 giving a few years on either end. Their efforts , I can not dismiss, as they made available to women less "advantaged" the time and space to join in the struggle. The old saying , "it doesn't matter how you got here..." comes to mind.

I respect Gloria Steinem, but as recently as our last presidential election she wrote an editorial that constructed some problematic comparisons between Clinton and Obama in terms of which is worse - sexism or racism, and totally ignored the existance of women of color who deal with both. (Oppression olympics is a very bad idea.)

I respect Gloria Steinem also and have to disagree with your take on this article she wrote during Pres. Obama's campaign. I felt very clear that her message in the context of this article was a simple observance of the still very disproportionate ranking of women in the political sphere. It was not at all a dismissal of Women of Color, moreover a statement that a woman ( her example was a woman of mixed ethnicity) of ANY color would not have had the same credence ( based on served/ lived political experience) as a man ( of any color).

Here is the article she wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/op...=1&oref=slogin


Nonetheless, NOW is still active and there is an upcoming PBS special about Steinem that I'm looking forward to seeing.

HBO is showing " Gloria: In Her Own Words" currently. I believe tonight was the first running. We recorded it and I am looking forward to watching it!

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fierce feminist -- it's perhaps the most relevant social movement on the planet, but I feel that its important to keep a critical perspective.

I totally agree with the reminder to keep a critical eye on this, OUR movement and any other movement of such magnitude. Most begin from frustration/ agony and are almost always fraught with turmoil in their infancy, like stretching limbs or taking that first breath.

Heart

Thank you, as usual, for your insights. I truly believe that until Women's Rights are fully embodied ( since we are a mere HALF of the world population) then no other "ism" will be fully eradicated. Women, and lesbians in particular, are at the forefront of EVERY human rights movement. I can't imagine a world where lesbians weren't fighting for the next right thing. This , in huge part, is why I become fearful for "lesbians" , to become "passe/ obsolete/ unfashionable".

I am a hair short of a tangent, so I will go read a fluff thread and hopefully drift off to sleep. Pride/ Equality/ Human Rights are words that call to me from my waking slumber, in these "tired" years of struggling. It renews me to read the words of everyone here who seem to really "get it", that it is NOT about a "battle of oppressions" , but a convergence of all oppressed that will rise.

Wonderful conversation! Thank you to all ya'll from the dirty south!

[Dean Thoreau]

As I read these posts, I could not help but recall a long number of years when my activity level in feminism/women's rights was high and it seemed every waking moment was somehow devoted to the cause or earning money so I could work for the cause.....then due to life circumstances my enthusism died down and the more my involvement in the Butch Femme community grew the further i strolled from feminism, women;s rights and thought it was my Identity, their lack of my identity acceptance or some such thing...
It has been a long road and I must confess at times a lonely one....No organization is without warts, or callusses nor are they deemed perfect after all mere humans are what keep them going.
Over the past year or so, I reentered society in many ways and rekindled and built my alliances with the women's movement, the hunger projects and a few other socio political organizations that I feel very strongly about. I must confess I am better able to see myself in the mirror after recommitting energy to the women's movement;

Until all women in the world young and old alike receive education, healthcare and the right to control their bodies no woman on earth will be free nor equal.
Maternal health, fistule repair, education things we take for granted must be granted to all woman in the world, for as long as there is a place on the earth where it is ok to beat a woman, rape a woman, not educate a woman, use her only as a male producing machine without regard for her as a human or her body....no woman in the world is equal. We are all still second class citizens and we as a group do not have human rights...

dean