Author
|
Topic: feminism and chickenshit
|
penelope
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11
|
posted 21 April 2001 10:43 PM
Sometimes I fear that I haven't internalized any of the lessons feminism has given me. A quick and easy example: I'm terrified of posting in the political forums on these boards. I feel as though I don't know enough; that my views will easily be argued with and I'll be left without a leg to stand on; that my politics aren't as valid as those already being argued. Policies and precedents arise and my head spins; not because I can't keep up, but because I'm worried I'll not know enough to prove that what I think is worthy of public viewing. I know through some chatting online that I'm not the only woman who feels this way. Do the rest of you? Do any of the men on here? Is this a gender thing, a confidence thing? Can the two be separated? Is this format of political discussion inherently biased because of the general difference between men's and women's approaches to dialectic, or should the problems obviously involved with the format be left up to each individual to solve, since in the end we all decide to be outspoken or not, confident or not? These aren't loaded questions. I very much want to know what you think. small note: I was originally going to post this in body and soul cause I didn't think it was worthy of the politics forum. Second wave didn't leave me entirely helpless, though; the personal is political. So here we are.
From: With audra! I'm the luckiest! | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 21 April 2001 11:08 PM
I started to post "wow, penelope, that made me cry", but then I deleted it, because I thought "How typically feminine", but then I retyped it because I thought "Screw it, I'm not ashamed of my strong feelings and reactions."I think you are exactly right, penelope. I mean, look at us. I run these boards, you and I have both been feminist publishers/editors for years, you've been paid to speak to huge groups of people, I have been a provincial council delegate for the NDP, and yet both of us have this inner doubt machine that kicks in full force when it comes to talking about politics in a male dominated space. I am on a holy quest to demystify politics for young women, and anyone else who feels unqualified to speak on issues that effect then. I don't know what I'll do until then, though.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Charles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 200
|
posted 22 April 2001 12:16 AM
I feel a little strange posting on this topic as a male, but I would like to share something I have observed in a number of chat groups. A lot of men (oddly enough, more so younger men) are aggressive on-line to a degree that I think stifles debate. I have been reading through a lot of groups lately and when debates get heated many men use put-downs, try to cut the rug out from someone who may disagree, or resort to SHOUTING AND SCREAMING IN THE ONLY WAY THEY KNOW HOW. I can recall only one example ever of a woman getting as petty and aggressive. I've asked some women friends why they don't get involved in these kind of groups, or why they don't feel comfortable speaking their minds in heated debate and often the response is, "I'm interested in discussion and not in getting shot down before I have a chance to properly articulate where I'm at." I think reluctance to engage in this kind of sharing is understandable. (I'm restricting this to on-line discussion only but I think it applies in broader context.) My two cents for what it's worth.
From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184
|
posted 22 April 2001 03:11 AM
I find this an interesting topic to say the least. I can't tell you what is right or wrong or what is and isn't. But I can tell you what I have seen first hand in spending far more time than should be legally allowed chatting in this format. I have seen many types of discussion rangeing from polite and friendly chatter to deep and philisophical intercourse to all out no holds barred flame wars. I am not sure if gender is an issue more than personality. Also consider the anonimity of the online format and the lines become more and more vague. Some folks can converse on any given topic online yet would never even consider voicing their opinion to a gathering offline. Others go to peices at the slightest hint of confrontation. I seem to remember a line from a movie "the three kings" where an experienced soldier explains to an unseasoned recruit that "You do the thing your afraid of, and then you get the courage." And I think this is true to an extent in this matter. But it could be applied to pretty much any topic of discussion. Experience in this case is a good teacher. The more you participate in online discussions wheather political or otherwise you learn from the discourse. There are all types. Everything you read is opinion. No matter what anyone calls you, you do not become that. It takes two to argue. And above all, don't take it personaly. Honestly those people to encounter online don't know you from Jack and understanding this will help to put into perspective why they are calling you a limp llama. Now for the finer aspects of debate. The moment someone hurls a derogitory name at you rather than refuting a point you have made is the moment you know you have won the debate. On the other hand, when you can't think up a good reason why a point is wrong or invalid and feel the need to resort to name calling you should know that your emotions have gotten the better of you and it is time to leave the arena, do some more research and live to fight another day. Having an open mind is a very good asset. Being wrong only means that you have the oportunity to learn something. Any time you learn something from your mistakes you grow a little more as a person. Deversify your experience. By that I mean that it is good to have a number of different places you read and post to. Though I am pretty new around here, I have found that it is for the most part a friendly place to chat where the conversation is well monitored and you have some friends around to boost your confidence. I have seen you post to a number of different topics here and to a few of the threads I am involved in as well. You make sense and are passionate about what you talk about. Disagreeing only shows that people are different and see things differently. Politics is no different that anyother topic. You know what you know and can speack to that with confidence. For the things you don't know, and who knows everything there is to know about anything, you question. The trick is not to know the answers but to have the ability to find them when you know what the questions are. Take heart in the thought that many have ome before you and many more will follow in the steps you take today. The only thing to fear is fear itself. Well maybe you should fear the wild tangents I can get into.
From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 22 April 2001 01:01 PM
A lot of it has to do with experience. I love to write, but public speaking to audiences of more than about 40 gives me butterflies like you would not believe. In fact I avoid it at all costs. So much for my courage.On line I've learned to do my best to separate my ego from my ideas. An attack on my ideas isn't an attack on me. Easier said than done, but managing that is key to keeping an open mind and learning. Keeping the facts as you know them on your side helps. There are a few sites I'll offer that show fallacious arguments. I review them from time to time. I feel more confident if I keep them in mind so that I don't fall into them. I get the feeling I might be carrying coals to Newcastle; I hope they don't waste your time. http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/sagan.htm http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html I think the deep down issue is the trepidation about facing an ad-hominem attack. Two truths help deal with this: One; Whoever launches the ad-hominen attack is admitting defeat and ignorance: and Two; relax and have faith that other readers understand that, and see it. The ones that count do. I hope that doesn't sound condesending; that's not my intent. I get the feeling you're smarter than me, and I feel deprived as long as this kind of reticence exists.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
vermigirl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 192
|
posted 22 April 2001 02:40 PM
I actually feel much safer arguing in an online format than "live," because I have the opportunity to read the whole thread of discussion, analyze it a bit, consider a response, write my response, and then revise it as many times as I want to. "recursive writing" at its best.I also love the fact that: 1. I won't get left behind, because I can always respond to a past remark; 2. no one knows who I am, so they really can't judge "me" (although an online persona can become fragile too); and 3. everyone is speaking at the same volume . We can't be drowned out, as long as we speak. I'll admit, I was once involved in a flame war on a local BBS in my youth. And you know what? I loved it! It gave me a chance to be really aggressive, and fight tooth and nail with the other guy, without feeling like I had to back down and be "nice". The experience made me much more sure of my online voice.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
storygirl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 30
|
posted 22 April 2001 06:57 PM
I haven't had too much trouble posting on these boards so far, but I admit even I had to fight the intimidation factor at first. Although for me it was related to a lot of things - primarily, I think, arguing with people who seem to have a very strong knowledge of the political. But reading this thread made me think of a whole bunch of issues. There does seem to be a slight dominance of men in my perception of "political knowledgability", but I think in the end, that ties into the stereotypes mentioned above, where many women feel men are "smarter" then them, for whatever reason. But it all sort of leans into the dominance of the male perspective in politics as well - something I've become all too familiar with this year, attending a school with a 70/30 ratio of women to men, and having 4 out of 5 of their elected student government (just the executive branch, mind you) be male. I asked someone about this, and they thought that perhaps women were loathe to get involved because they just weren't interested. But why is that? I certainly don't feel that one woman can represent the voice of the majority. Do some have the interest, and others don't? Or is it a case of women separating themselves from an area where they don't feel they should be "involved".That said, i think the only reason I've haven't feared to be vocal is due to the fact that when I disagree with a viewpoint, I feel the need to discuss it. But even that hasn't held true in some areas. I've generally been avoiding talking in this forum, I've noticed, as well as the news one - anything that implies political knowledge. And wow, that was longer then I intended - but I also needed to say that I find it interesting that a man posting in this forum said that he felt uncomfortable. I think to have this discussion, every voice is needed. But that in itself speaks a little to gender segregation. And whew! Just many thanks in general for starting this topic, penelope, and for everyone else commenting. It's something I hadn't thought about, and needed too. edited to say: looking back, I was initially afraid to post in the topic, because I felt I wasn't "feminist" enough (and I do consider myself one) to say something that would be seen as useful on the subject. So I think things work in different ways - undeserving of running with the "boys club", yet equally undeserving of the coveted title "feminist". Although I guess in the end I did it anyway. [ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: storygirl ]
From: Guelph | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
babbler 8
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8
|
posted 22 April 2001 10:07 PM
Wow, this is a great topic. I personally don't feel at all uncomfortable in responding to it because I have actually wondered a lot about this. I have noticed that on lists-serves and boards like this, women, particularly younger ones, do tend to be less vocal on politics. I find this frustrating because I know you have a lot to add. It's good to see the reasons for this discussed.Having recently gotten to know Audra, Penelope and Anna I know the three of you are extremely intelligent people. Infact personally I'd be more careful about crafting my words in debating any of you than most people I debate in politics because I know how smart you are. I think a lot if this has to do with socialization. Boys and girls are socialized differently and I think that has a lot to do with their approach to these things. Calinda's competitive sports example is a good one, but certainly not the only one. I don't think the answer is to blame men for this, and I'm happy to see this isn't happening here. I make no apology for engaging in vigorous debate. But I do admit having been involved in flame wars in the past, which I'm not proud of, but I certainly see where vermigirl is coming from on this. Lastly, I don't think this is exclusively a gender issue. Some men, I'm sure, are reluctant to debate for similar reasons, but I think it is more common with women.
From: take a break, we've been on this site too long | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 22 April 2001 11:00 PM
I don't blame men for this at all. I do think, however, that it is important not to get caught in a kind of trap wherein the way men communicate is viewed as the norm, and the way women communicate viewed as female specific. What I mean by that, is that we all have to be open to change our debate styles to suit the needs of people in a group. If, for example, there was a deaf person present in a discussion, people would have to talk one at a time, to accomodate an interpreter. What I'm trying to say is... well, we all have different needs, right? And if young women are coming into a formerly male-dominated space, there might be a whole bunch of written/unwritten rules in place about the way people interact, that might be contrary to the needs of young women who have been socialized differently. I hate the mentality that expects people to change who they are to suit traditional rules, instead of re-examining traditional rules and adjusting them accordingly. (I'm talking about things like Robert's Rules of order, people, not anti-homicide laws. Don't all jump on me at once.)
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 23 April 2001 03:50 PM
Hello to all - this is the first time I have ever posted anything being new to the net. I find this thread interesting, too, for a couple of reasons. It has been my experience that many women do hold back when in meetings with men. Sometimes the format is unfamiliar (as in Robert's Rules of Order)which may cause someone with something to say to stay silent. Also, there have been meetings that I have attended where there is a great deal of aggressive behaviour and body language which, given the histories of many women in our society, can have the effect of frightening someone into silence. A forum such as this provides a place of some safety in which to express a viewpoint.The other thing that springs to mind and keyboard is that many women are conscious of the need to be inclusive. We will often preface sentences with phrases such as "I believe..., I feel..., etc." in order to indicate respect for someone who holds a different point of view. This brings an important dynamic into any forum, increasing safety of expression for all. That's my two bits. Loretta
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 23 April 2001 10:39 PM
Is it a gender issue at all? I've noticed that Canadians in general are more reticent, less likely to be strident compared to our friends to the south, the English or Australians. I notice that two of my daughters are in those teenage years where everything is black and white; they are judgemental and strident with thier views. They've yet to have thier views go through the annealing process of life. Maybe the reticence, or the lack of stridency isn't "effeminate" at all, maybe it's a mark of maturity? I try to stay away from using "I believe" or "I think" because, as a sceptic, I disdain belief. I don't want to believe, I want to know. Of course, if we confine ourselves to talking about what we know, it would be boring. But there are rational ways to express conjecture. Just phrase it as such. Embarrassment rightly comes ones way, (as it has mine from time to time; emotion sometimes eclipses logic) when one tries to pass off conjecture as fact. So, I'd agree with Chrissy when she says: "And I'm not at all convinced that it's inappropriate. Maybe admitting the validity of viewpoints that are not your own is not necessarily a sign of weakness."
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
storyfool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 248
|
posted 23 April 2001 11:55 PM
Another boy adds his voice - (now there's a shocker). Allors, two anecdotes.Loretta's comments reminded me of the following: Some time ago I used to attend monthly interagency (NGO) meetings in Ottawa. I played a game. Sometimes I would preface my comments with little provisos like, "in my opinion" or "I'm not sure, but..." or "what if...". Invariably I was ignored. And also, more often than not my point would be reiterated a couple of speakers later with more assertiveness and that person would "win" the credit so to speak. this was my way of testing some feminist analysis of gendered conversational patterns. I learned that despite my maleness, to use speech tactics that were characteristically gender coded as female, I was, as I witnessed with many women, ignored. In the same meeting I would also assert my opinion as fact and be listened to. Sometimes I felt like I was a yo-yo. But it was a powerful way to witness the not-so-subtleties of sexism in the social justice world that I was a part of. Admittedly, the mere tip of the iceberg of mysogyny in our social ocean. A few years ago I was trying to get down to finishing a masters paper. For days I sat blankly in front of my laptop. One day I cried. Gathering myself, I examined the anguish that seized my chest. I felt I had nothing of value to say. This from a guy who regularly gets accused of being an arrogant know-it-all. I was absolutely stunned at the power of this emotion. I felt like I had one of those ridiculous Monty Python hands-from-the-clouds whacking me in the head. Where on earth did this feeling of despair come from? I knew it was deep. Well, to spare you the predictable turn into psychoanalysis, I realized that that feel of worthlessness with respect to writing had deep roots - family and community and class and gender and race and so on - the usual constellation of interlocking oppressions (I love mixed metaphors). It was reading feminist analyses like Anne-Louise Brookes' "Feminist Pedagogy: An Autobiographical Approach" (Fernwood, ‘92) that showed me some of the complexity of how our authorial voices are so warped by the ubiquitous violence of our society. I'm not making the facile point that men are victims too. While this may be true in a broad philosophical way (ie we're all dehumanised by violence against women), overall men benefit materially while women die daily, as we know. Rather, I guess I am trying to reflect on the power of sexism not only to perpetuate violence against women but also to silence men while simultaneously offering men a host of privileges to buy into. I benefit from these privileges every day. Even while being in solidarity with women. I am hopeful that this bbs will be a space where we can engage in different processes of dialogue. And I recognise the courage of all those who post here despite fear.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
storyfool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 248
|
posted 25 April 2001 12:03 AM
Loretta, I agree with your suggestion that "speech tactics "characterisically coded as female" tend to foster consensus and inclusiveness, whereas the more assertive style of participating in a group could lend itself to polarization within the group and alienation of some of the less powerful participants." This is certainly my experience of working in groups. Much of my work has to do with facilitating consensus situations and I have learned to wield the power of provisos to create democratic space for dialogue (of course there's more to it than that - "I" statements can be effective as well). Also I find it's worth recognizing the nature of the situation of dialogue/discourse we find ourselves in. Many situations are, unfortunately, still ruled by patriarchal "win-lose" practices. If we do find ourselves in the midst of such, then we have a choice to play along, play tricks, be critical or simply defy. While women can choose to assert "opinion as fact" (and this would work in many cases) I suspect that as far as a mere speech tactic is concerned men would still benefit more. Resistance to sexism and mysogyny has got to go further than speech tactics.One of my interests is how women and men (and also the young, old, transgendered and so on) can act in solidarity to engage in discourse that is democratic, that is about the creation of consensus, that doesn't shy away from disagreements, that demands of us to put our passionate hearts into the debate while remaining open to being persuaded to new points of view. Like others have expressed here, I too carry fears about posting my thoughts here. I most times feel like the words I place here have been peeled from my flesh and I have to work hard not to take criticism personally. My hope in this place is that, on balance, this will be a place of compassionate exchange. (PS: Loretta, are you mocking me with "Storyboy" (not that there's anything wrong with that) or have you genuinely misread my handle?)
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athena Dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 435
|
posted 02 May 2001 11:54 AM
Storyfool, can I give you a hug?I was re-reading ... what was it ... The Mismeasure of Woman? I think that was it. Yesterday. (Normally I'm not so incoherent, please believe me.) And she makes the excellent point that what we think of as "woman's communication" and "woman's intuition" is really "subordinate's communication" and "subordinate's intuition." Studies have been done which put men in subordinate positions and women in dominant positions, and they find consistently that those in the dominant position regardless of gender speak clearly and without qualifiers. "Subordinate's communication," according to these theories, is a way to avoid provoking a negative reaction. Neat stuff. Some of you may want to consider it, or read the book; it had a lot of really excellent stuff. That said, I think the ability to speak clearly and confidently is something that comes along with practice. I don't want to valourize the "male as normal", as Audra has pointed out, but I do believe in this case that speaking clearly and directly and succinctly is a better method of communication. When I speak or write, I want someone to clearly receive my ideas, not a more polite or palatable masked version for public consumption. I've been on-line for years. I've flamed, I've been flamed. I've spoken directly, I've spoken shyly. And what I have generally found is that the more honestly and clearly I present my ideas, the more respect they are given by readers, the better they know *me* as opposed to what I think I ought to be like, the more friends I make, and so on. It's counter-intuitive, but I really believe that speaking from the heart and to convince with all the passion that you have (whether you are right or wrong) is in the end more effective both at communicating and at building relationships and community.
From: GTA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 23 August 2002 04:55 PM
The how do you explain Ann Coulter? Uh oh, I'm the one who argued in another thread that we're paying to much attention to her. Shame on me.I'm probably going to get in trouble here, but let me put forth a suggestion. I think women, with numerous notable exceptions on this site, tend to have difficulty separating the political from the personal. In other words, men can say to each other in a political argument, "you're full of shit" or, "fuck off," things of that nature, without taking it personally. Women tend to react differently. I know in a political argument I had with wife last year, I said, "that's stupid," which she took to mean that I had called her stupid. All right. Let the brick throwing begin. [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: josh ] [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845
|
posted 23 August 2002 06:50 PM
quote: I said, "that's stupid," which she took to mean that I had called her stupid.
Is it really that strange that if you accuse someone of espousing a stupid viewpoint that they would take it personally? You can disagree with the viewpoint but decrying it with such a derogatory word with the connotations it inevitably has (if someone described the views you held as stupid, would you really not consider/feel any of it personally?) is bound (in male or female) to make them feel it is a personal attack. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think your wife's reaction is that strange!
From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 23 August 2002 06:54 PM
quote: Is this a gender thing, a confidence thing?
Neither: it's a perspective thing. Why do you care so much? It's only talk, ferchrissake! Let's do that again, bigger, for emphasis. IT'S ONLY TALK! If somebody doesn't like your persona on a forum, what happens? If somebody disagrees with your opinion, what happens? If somebody thinks you're misinformed, ignorant, a moron, a Mormon, a maroon, stupid, full of shit, a nasty commie, a wimp, a boor, an enslaver of mankind... what happens? Absolutely nothing. I've heard (well, not heard - seen, read) people say things like "They crucified hem for expressing that opinion." In fact, they did no such thing: they made some rude remarks, is all. Not a scratch on the victim. It's like saying, "S/he has to fight traffic three hours a day." One doesn't fight traffic; one merely sits, in safety and comfort, and is bored - maybe not even that, given radio, tape-deck and cell-phone. Hyperbole. We tend to take hyperbole far too seriously. Step back a pace, put it in perspective. It doesn't fuggin' matter!
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 23 August 2002 07:31 PM
Nonesuch: I agree. It's a totally subjective and arbitrary observation.
I base it primarily on the numerous on-line chat rooms I've been in. I haven't as of yet had enough face-to-face contact with Canadian women to make a more detailed appraisal. [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 23 August 2002 08:23 PM
Or, if it is, we've got some ballsy little women here (insert music) and i'm a'gonna get me one.josh* - i won't hold my breath, but i'd still like some ground-level observations. Interesting subject, how women from different backgrounds express opinions on socially important (which involve all of us) matters, and whether geography plays a significant part. See, i think women -generally - have a more fundamental grasp on events and trends than do men. Not being sexist, just considering different perspectives: nothing major goes down, but both kinds of prespective are needed to understand it. *breakthough. I started a sentence, with a name, in lower case and Hell did not open to gobble me up, nor did i get sent to the vice-principal's office. See? It's just talk. [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 23 August 2002 09:15 PM
Actually, my original observation was probably stupid. See, I can call myself stupid and not get offended.How can you ever make such a comparison without it being totally subjective and arbitrary? How many women to you need to discuss politics with in each country in order to make the comparison objective? All I know is that on this site alone, I've encountered more bright, ballsy (take that as a complement) women than in most of my personal political encounters with American women. [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 June 2007 06:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by penelope: Sometimes I fear that I haven't internalized any of the lessons feminism has given me. A quick and easy example: I'm terrified of posting in the political forums on these boards. I feel as though I don't know enough; that my views will easily be argued with and I'll be left without a leg to stand on; that my politics aren't as valid as those already being argued. Policies and precedents arise and my head spins; not because I can't keep up, but because I'm worried I'll not know enough to prove that what I think is worthy of public viewing. I know through some chatting online that I'm not the only woman who feels this way. Do the rest of you? Do any of the men on here? Is this a gender thing, a confidence thing? Can the two be separated? Is this format of political discussion inherently biased because of the general difference between men's and women's approaches to dialectic, or should the problems obviously involved with the format be left up to each individual to solve, since in the end we all decide to be outspoken or not, confident or not? These aren't loaded questions. I very much want to know what you think. small note: I was originally going to post this in body and soul cause I didn't think it was worthy of the politics forum. Second wave didn't leave me entirely helpless, though; the personal is political. So here we are.
Wow, powerful, and says it like it is, and then people ask where are the feminist voices, here, and ti is true the men want this to be like a boys club where the little woman can just be hectored away.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|