Download Sisterhood Is Forever: The Women's Anthology for a New Millennium
Biologically CorrectNatalie AngierIn all my years as a science writer I ve sought to encourage friends relatives and other members of the laity not to be so afraid of science Science doesn t belong only to scientists I ve exhorted anythan art belongs only to artists or politics to the Eeyores and Dumbos of Washington DC Science is the property of the human race It s one of our greatest achievements and it doesn t take nearly as much effort as nonscientists believe to become reasonably literate in a particular discipline to the point where you may even venture an opinion on say the rights of a US consumer to drive an SUV global warming be damned versus the rights of a citizen of Bangladesh to continue living above sea levelBut I m afraid that when it comes to my most cherished of subjects evolutionary biology the concept of scientific populism has been taken too far It seems practically everybody is now an amateur Darwinist willing to speculate grandly on the deep Plio Pleistocene origins of all modern vices known to man woman or Tony Soprano Lawyers bring evolutionary reasoning into the courtroom Psychologists discuss the evolutionary basis of depression neuroticism anorexia alcoholism a wicked sweet tooth Theologians insist the human brain evolved to believe in god who may or may not return the favor by believing in evolutionNow I don t believe evolution is a theory anythan I believe gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are theories I consider myself a Darwinist right down to my DNA which I m happy to share percent of with our cousins the chimpanzees But it s one thing to revel in Darwin s magnificent overarching theory of evolution by natural selection and another to play Spin the HMS Beagle of a Saturday night and call the results science Yet to my disgust and occasionally crippling sense of despair many of the slap happy data free Darwinesue theory ettes to emerge in recent years have been widely dispensed and accepted to the point where they too are considered the biological euivalents of E MC And nowhere has the acceptance of evolution tinged notions been greatercredulous andinsidious than for those purporting to explain the supposed differences between the sexes Darwinophiles particularly the subspecies who label themselves evolutionary psychologists love to talk about the gulf that separates men and women Everywhere I turn there they are thematic variations of the dreary old ditty Higgamus hoggamus women are monogamous hoggamus higgamus men are polygamous Or in another mildewed rendering men are ardent women coy Or how about men want uantity women uality Or take that men want sex women want love Evolutionary psychology has newly proved old verities to be true Not necessarily with data mind you how much data do you need to prove the obvious but with nifty new theoretical constructs and sufficiently high jargon wattage terminology to lend a spangle of rigor to the fieldFor example evolutionary psychologists evo psychos love to talk about mental modules little cerebral fiefdoms that supposedly operate independently and subliminally to prevent us from behaving in the rational integrated thoughtful manner that we deluded femi Nazi types might strive to accomplish As a result of these finely honed modules which evo psychos liken to the separate tools in a Swiss army knife we will do things that may seem illogical and even counterproductive to our lives overall say by choosing a dumb mate just because he s tall or she has big breasts and our mate finding module sees the person as a bearer of good genes or a fecund womb thus the best tool for the job of reproducing So what if our intellectual or kinship bonding modules disapprove of what our mate finding module brought home And so what if there is as yet no evidence for the existence of these mental modules Evo psychos also emphasize the differential reproductive potential between men and women transmutating the numeric discrepancy between a man s sperm cells and a woman s egg cells into any and all sex linked ineuities you care to mention the rarity of female CEOs or Nobel laureates the spareness of the average female s salary the disparity in gumption motion get up and go tionNo longer are the evolved differences between men and women presumed hypothetical until proven actual as they might have been as recently as the early s now they are pretty much post factual For example in his essay The End of Courtship bioethicist Leon Kass chosen by President George W Bush to head a national bioethics advisory panel uotes the tired hoggamus doggerel declaring without apology footnote or citation that Ogden Nash had it right Memo to Kass the verse was written by William James This keeper of the nation s moral compass asserts that a natural obstacle to courtship and marriage is the deeply ingrained natural waywardness and unruliness of the human male One can make a good case Kass continues that biblical religion is not least an attempt to domesticate male sexuality and male erotic longings although how good a case depends on whether you consider an Old Testament hero like King Solomon who had wives and concubines to be an exemplar of domesticated masculinity As for modern women Kass pities us as we hop unnaturally from bed to uncommitted bed living their most fertile years neither in the homes of their fathers nor their husbands Far from enjoying sexual liberation he says we are awash in uiet desperation unprotected lonely and out of sync with their inborn nature Apart from the general yuckiness of Kass s aspartame tainted nostalgia I wouldn t mind terribly if such self styled neo Darwinists restricted their pontificating to insisting that men are on averagesexually rapacious and prone to philandering than women I don t believe that claim and in fact some evidence indicates otherwise while performing routine prenatal screening tests for the presence of disease genes genetic counselors have found incidentally that anywhere from to percent of babies are fathered by somebody other than the mother s husband and surely not all these women were forced against their inborn nature into adulterous copulationsNevertheless I can keep my erotic longings to myself and if it makes a fellow feel better to insist that his are bigger andunruly than mine he can insist away What is fardisturbing and what I cannot accept without mounting my soapbox for a lusty rant is the tendency of the evo psycho crowd to attribute to men not only greater sexual ardor but greater ardor for life Kass writes that men are not only innate sexual predators but are also naturallyrestless and ambitious than women lacking women s powerful and immediate link to life s generative answer to mortality men flee from the fear of death into heroic deed great uests or sheer distraction after distraction Others are evenpresumptuous On a computer list populated by academic sex researchers one member recently asked for commentary about the following uote from an unnamed source As a conseuence of differential evolutionary histories human genetic males on average differ from genetic females in fundamental behavioral ways Males arecompetitive aggressive creative and inuisitive than females These behavioral characteristics are evident throughout human societies to one degree or the other and in aggregate are irrefutable These average differences are clearly reflected in the dominance and achievements of males over the course of human history in politics architecture science technology philosophy and literature among other areas of human activity and intellectual concentration It is reasonable to posit that these average differences between human males and females are functions of the differential environmental demands human males encountered over tens of thousands of years in human evolution Today these differences are founded in the genetic and hormonal constitution of the human maleMy reaction on reading this was Huh Are you joking Men by their genetic and hormonal constitution arecreative and inuisitive than women Sez who Sez what data To my dismay other members of the list were unperturbed It is pretty standard evolutionary psychology of sex differences shrugged one professor referring to various popular books about evolutionary psychology including the bluntly titled Why Men Rule A Theory of Male Dominance Woe to this professor s female students if he conveys to them his settled opinion that males have a hardwired advantage in exactly those traits necessary to excel in his class Well every trait except cleavageI don t mean to be flip and sarcastic OK I do But I also want to express my frustration at how readily and arrogantly so much evolutionary blather can be bandied about with hardly a whimper of complaint or an attempt at alternative interpretation Remember I m a big fan of Darwinism convinced that by considering the deep roots of our past we can enrich our lives now if only because understanding always trumps ignorance and denial I also believe that evolutionary biology is a growth industry and that we will be seeing evereffort inside and outside of academia to examine contemporary human behavior from a Darwinian perspective Fine But maybe we shouldn t leave the analysis to a small self referential cabal of evolutionary psychologists who attempt to reify the status uo with a few sweeping simplistic binary formulationsMaybe we should seek to use Darwinian principles to our own nefarious ends beginning with a fresh understanding of feminist impulses Many mainstream neo Darwinists try to dismiss feminism We re scientists We seek the truth about human nature however unpleasant they self righteously maintain We must resist the forces of political correctness and get at the truth But what this smug dismissal fails to address is the fact that feminism and its attendant egalitarian impulses are very much part of human nature Hence any system that purports to explain the primal origins of our desires must also explain why any of us want to be feminists in the first place I would argue that feminism is an evolved trait part of the puzzle to be solved not a distraction from it If it takes evolutionary biologists who double as feminists to tackle this particular puzzle piece they can fairly be said to be at their most scientific just when evo psycho critics are pooh poohing them for being driven by political motivesSome scientists do see the need to move beyond clichs toward anuanced picture of human motivation a recognition of the suppleness of human nature the capacity for men and women to adjust their social and reproductive strategies as conditions around them change Male as well as female scientists lately have argued for broadening the field of evolutionary psychology to incorporate the notion that our psychology does in fact evolve is designed to evolve even in the absence of genetic evolution There is a reason why we have managed for better or worse to colonize virtually every habitat on the earth s surface and to turn the planet and its glorious diversity into a vast playground for Homo sapiens It s because we are omnivores in every sense of the word nutritionally c.
Summary ´ PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook ↠ Robin Morgan
Ulturally behaviorally Any theoretical framework that slights our plasticity that declares all or most men to be like this and all or most women to be like that is a framework fit only for kindlingHere s an example of rigid absolutism again from Sexnet which made me run for my matchbook A hard core evolutionary psychologist presented his little gedanken then kindly told us just how to gedank about it There is a contest he wrote If you win you get either of two prizes unlimited store credit at Saks Fifth Avenue for a day period that is you can have anything you can walk away with or have extremely attractive total strangers of the preferred sex a different one each night come to your room rip your clothes off and have mad sex with you I guarantee you that close to percent of young men will choose the latter and close to percent or literally percent of women young or older will choose the former The old Sex vs Saks dilemma When I read this I thought Neither of the above sir I won t go into what my fantasy prize might be or might have been in the days when I was a single woman without kids but these boxes don t hold me and never did Nor do they hold a lot of people including a lot of good evolutionary scientists I expressed my annoyance to David Sloan Wilson of the State University of New York at Binghamton a scientist I mostly adore with the exception of his occasional fits of didacticism that seem endemic to the scientific trade Wilson has criticized much of the current evo psycho literature while still considering himself an evolutionary psychologist so I knew he d sympathize with my desire for ainclusive expansive approach to understanding the evolution of human nature I sent him the gedanken and described my surly feelings about it Darwin bless him for his delicious reply Your Neither of the above answer can be given a serious scientific formulation The evolutionary psychology view assumes that all resources for women flow through men leaving only the strategies of find the best husband or maximize your returns from sexual favors The option that is not listed is self determination or calling one s own shots With this simple addition feminism finds an evolutionary voice capable of silencing the evolutionary psychology voice on its own turf Wilson then paused for a pious commercial break warning me that whenever I sought to argue against the narrow evolutionary psychology view or any other objectionable evolutionary theory of human behavior I must do so from an evolutionary perspective of my own lest I leave the opposition holding the banner of Darwinism crowing about the stupidity of their critics for rejecting evolution altogether As an aside Wilson went on even in its shriveled form the Sex vs Saks experiment wouldn t work Any guy with a brain an oxymoron in most cases would choose the Saks option and amass so much stuff over days that he could havethan women long enough to actually impregnate them If he could choose Abercrombie amp Fitch instead of Saks he d probably throw it all away for a single fishing pole The boneheads who chose the women would probably have second thoughts by night and would beg numbers and to watch TV instead of having sex In the words of George Bernard Shaw Wilson concluded They are barbarians who mistake their own customs for human nature What can we do to reclaim the blessed turf of Darwinism How can we think afresh about our contemporary selves in the light of several million years of thrashing around in the grim and shank of nature Let me toss out a few ideas I feel have been neglected in most pop renditions of neo evo Let me try to the best of my ability as a serious if not officially credentialed Darwin hobbyist to present an ancestral Eve who had greater or at leastcomplex aims in life than a Stone Age shopping spreeI ll start with the answer I give whenever anybody asks me what I think the real primal non negotiable differences between men and women may be I preface my response by claiming the ignorance we all suffer under in any discussion of the roots of something as intangible and free of fossil evidence as human nature But there is one big difference which amounts to an amusing similarity with profound conseuences A woman like any female primate has two core desires First access to resources which means food shelter and ever since we were so rudely and coldly depilated clothing for herself and her young Second control over her sex life and her reproduction What are a man s core desires He too wants access to resources and control over the means of reproduction which in the absence of male parthenogenesis means control over women There s nothing inherently wrong with this desire But the fact that women and men are tussling over the same piece of valuable real estate the female body means that the tedious endlessly vivisected war between the sexes is pretty much built into the system I m by no means arguing that men and women can never get along The best of friends and allies are often cunning competitors Consider the Greek warriors in the Iliad who during intermissions in the Trojan War could think of no zestier way to spend their leisure than holding mini Olympics to see who could run the fastest throw the farthest jump the highest all in the nude no less Recall as well that even the most seemingly like minded bodily bonded of dyads mother and infant engage in subtle conflicts The fetus wants to grow very big very fast while the mother wants to keep its dimensions compact and manageable to preserve her body for future trials which is why some fetus specific genes are designed to enhance the growth of the placenta and the maternal euivalents of those genes help suppress placental ambitions The child wants to stay on the breast year after year the better to forestall births of rival siblings through the ovulatory suppression that nursing imparts the mother wants to wean her greedy suckler and maybe have a fewkids without depleting her calcium stores and risking every osteocyte in her bodyYet such subconscious clashes of interest do not mean that mother and young are really enemies rather than the great lovers they often appear to be Instead they are living creatures bound together by fourteen carat compromise trading up Paradise Lost for Paradox Found and relishing the match So too can men and women love each other wildly without necessarily or even desirably seeing eye to eye provided everyone s eyes are wide and gimletWhat the inherent dialectic of the sexes does mean is that men and women may have differing definitions of freedom Evo psychos opining from their standard masculinist perspective emphasize the clash between a man s restlessness and a woman s desire for commitment as exemplified by the Leon Kass passage uoted above the assumption being that men need freedom and women do not But if you take afemale primate point of view you see that uite often it is the woman who wants her freedom and the man or men collectively who are determined to circumscribe her A woman may want freedom to walk by herself down the street just as a female chimpanzee may have the urge to move from denuded bush A to bursting berry patch B but if the wayfarer happens to be a young urban Homo sapien she will be harassed en routemercilessly than any free ranging ape A woman may also want the opportunity to exercise that old gift of Mother Nature known as female choice to socialize flirt and if the chemistry fits to mate with the men she likes while avoiding those she does notBut think of how many women are abused and beaten sometimes hunted down and killed by men who have either fallen off the women s A list often because they were too aggressively possessive or never made it to the chosen column in the first place Many men play within the bounds of female choice and seek to please the women they find pleasing just as women usually strive to please the men by whom they themselves hope to be chosen But sometimes a man has little patience for the strictures of female choice he wants access to the means of personal perpetuity that only a female body can give him so whack smack get over here bitch Who in these cases is seeking to domesticate whom and who most fearful of being barred from connubial bliss Evo psychos are well aware of the potential ferocity of male sexual jealousy they incorporate the power of that jealousy into many of their theories about differing male and female strategies But they fail to admit that male jealousy exists because women are whether they take the tag or spurn it born feminists Women like men want the freedom to roam explore experiment all desires to be expected in a highly intelligent inuisitive shrewd opportunistic social species It s not out of sync with our nature to want autonomy The individual is the reproductive unit Through the fantastic efforts of eons of evolution the individual is born to like its particular genome to want to get as much of that genome into the population as possible The individual does not like being pushed around deprived of choice enslaved The individual tends to chafe against excessive oppression This is not political correctness This is common sense Darwinian sense our past present and future senseThen there is the bracing sense of dollars and cents Not only do women yearn for the plain old primate liberty to come and go pick and choose Protestations of Kass and company notwithstanding women are also born ambitious they want social power respect admiration Such desires are not the invention of the modern feminist movement They are our birthright or burden as a profoundly social species in which personal power translates into all the goodies of life Nor is the lust for acclaim and high rank in contradistinction to a woman sfamiliar nurturing side The two impulses to succeed in society and to care for your children are expressions of the same drive A good mother is a powerful mother A good mother can accrue resources for her young and a really good mother can outcompete other mothers in the neighborhood thereby ensuring that her children will do really well while the children of less ambitious stock skulk around the back forest smoking acanthus leaves before getting picked off by a leopardThe inherent ambitiousness of women can be seen in any country where women are not confined to home or bura At the slightest opportunity women flock to schools so much so that university officials in the United States bemoan the comparative lack of male faces in the classroom Women take to the professions with astonishing ease ever since the contemporary feminist movement helped open heretofore forbidden trades to women the number of female doctors and lawyers has jumped from a few percent to nearly percent and woman owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of our society Despite media gloatographies about the women who yearn to stay at home and be supported by a man surveys repeatedly show that most employed women like earning a paycheckYet despite the evidence evo bloviators have ignored or denied the existence of women s ambition Behind this neglect are a couple of conceptual chestnuts in serio.
Robin Morgan ↠ 4 review
Us need of roastingFirst is the idea that males and females have wildly different reproductive prospects By this notion males tend to fall on either end of the reproductive scale as zeroes or heroes with most failing utterly to reproduce and a minority of lucky stiffs monopolizing most of the females and siring most of the young In contrast females have been viewed as interchangeable bearingor less the same number of offspring and beingor less similarly talented in mothering skills Hence males had a strong spur to be hyperambitious and competitive while females supposedly did best by keeping a low profile busying themselves with a predictable number of bairnsRecent research including extensive paternity studies using DNA fingerprinting techniues has skewered this folklore As it turns out the alpha males in many species breed fewer young than presumed and the supposed duds sometimes prove spermic studs Among females on the other hand the discrepancy in fruitfulness is far greater than previously believed Some females are much better at bearing and rearing young than others and those supermoms as it happens are the powerhouses of their societies For example Flo a member of the Gombe chimpanzee troop long studied by Jane Goodall was the most prolific female chimp of all time She reared all but one of her nine infants to adulthood a success rate at least twice that for the average chimpanzee mother Flo also happened to be the most powerful female chimpanzee any researcher has ever observed She could displace virtually any other chimpanzee save the highest ranking much larger males from a prize feeding site and her subordinates competed for the chance to groom her So powerful was Flo that her daughters managed to stay in their birthplace rather than being forced to migrate at puberty as female chimps usually are those daughters in turn became powerful prolific matriarchs Mother chimps like Flo were not simply doting nurturers but entrepreneurial dynasts as well writes the primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy in her marvelous book Mother Nature Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species Pantheon A female s uest for status her ambition if you will has become inseparable from her ability to keep her offspring and grand offspring alive As Hrdy sees it a generalized striving for local clout was programmed into the primate female s psyche long ago the result of a convergence between high status and successful motherhoodAnother reason why the evo psychos have shortchanged female striving stems from their assumption that whatever status and power women have sought they sought secondhand by coupling with strong ambitious powerful men This supposition is part of the larger tenet that women have a much greater need for men than any other female primate has for her male counterpart The prolonged helplessness of the human infant the story goes means that a woman can t rear it alone hence the evolution of love romance and committed fathers It s true that women need help to rear their young muchhelp than any other female ape reuires But the most recent anthropological evidence strongly suggests that women get such help from many uarters from men from relatives from their older children In some traditional cultures senior females are indispensable to the welfare of their young kin in others women relyon the assistance of brothers uncles and male cousins than on the take home prey of their mates elsewhere women accept contributions from a number of different consorts As anthropologist Meredith F Small notes in Kids How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Raise Our Children Doubleday about percent of childcare in the world is performed by older siblingsIn sum women through the ages and across the world s stages have been remarkably creative and adaptable when seeking solutions to the childcare crisis We have always lived in a nanny state of one sort or another For their part men do not always display the hallmarks of devoted fatherhood As Geoffrey F Miller has described in The Mating Mind How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature Doubleday much of the behavior we view as paternal may be a courtship display a way of pleasing one s current mate and perhaps attracting the attention of other females in the vicinity If good fathering conduct were driven by the same thing as is maternal behavior a desire to improve one s offspring s chances of survival why Miller asks would so many fathers end up as deadbeat dads who invest virtually nothing in the children of women they have divorced or abandoned After all DNA paternity testing is a ridiculously recent invention and the grim male fears synopsized by the couplet Mother s baby Father s maybe are not to be dismissed out of handIf paternity uncertainty bred waffling fathers prone to bolting from their responsibilities we would expect as a corollary women who likewise waffled about pinning their future and their children s welfare to one man however alpha How foolish a woman would be to forsake any attempt at gaining a degree of personal power or cultivating a reliable route to resources simply for the opportunity to marry an ambitious man who could easily abandon her be killed while out hunting or simply prove to be a fraud It s tempting to think that women have indeed evolved to hook their prospects to their mates because we see as much in the annals of history not to mention the pages of Jane Austen but in fact the condition of extreme female dependency on husbands is very recent and depends for its maintenance on a strong set of laws making divorce difficult and punishing deadbeatism As we ve seen in recent decades of loosened divorce laws women who cling to the model of complete economic reliance on a husband suffer terrible financial hardship when the marriage breaks up and they and their children are all too likely to be cast into poverty That such a risky my man is my meal ticket strategy could have arisen and persisted in prehistory in the absence of a legal system and in the face of chronic threats of famine seems to me frankly laughable Better to be ambitious cunning and yes creative competitive and aggressive Better to earn your degree learn a trade get a paycheck kiss it and sock it away If you re going to bank on anything it might as well be a bankNatalie Angier is a best selling author and Pulitzer Prizewinning science writer for The New York Times Previously she has been senior science writer for Time magazine an editor at the women s business magazine Savvy and a professor at New York University s Graduate Program in Science and Environmental Reporting Her first book Natural Obsessions Houghton Mifflin an inside look at the world of cancer research was named a notable book of the year by The New York Times and the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS In she began working for The New York Times the following year she won a Pulitzer in the category of beat reporting for a series of articles on a wide array of scientific topics from the biology of scorpions to the astonishing prevalence of infidelity in the animal kingdom Among her other awards are the AAAS Westinghouse award for excellence in science journalism and the Lewis Thomas Award for distinguished writing in the life sciences Her second book The Beauty of the Beastly Houghton Mifflin has been translated into eight languages Her latest Woman An Intimate Geography Houghton Mifflin Anchor Vintage paperback was a bestseller a National Book Award finalist winner of a Maggie Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation and named one of the best books of the year by the Los Angeles Times the Chicago Tribune and other major media She is the editor of The Best American Science and Nature Writing Houghton Mifflin Her writing has appeared in numerous periodicals ranging from the Atlantic Monthly to Natural History from Cosmopolitan to MsSuggested Further ReadingEhrlich Paul R Human Natures Genes Cultures and Human Prospects Washington DC Island Press Hrdy Sarah Blaffer The Woman That Never Evolved Boston Harvard University Press reissued with a new Preface in Jolly Alison Lucy s Legacy Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press Rose Hilary and Steven Rose eds Alas Poor Darwin Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology New York Random House Small Meredith F What s Love Got to Do with It The Evolution of Human Mating New York Anchor Books Copyright copy by Robin MorganThirty years after Robin Morgan s groundbreaking anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful named by The American Librarians Association one of The Most Influential Books of the Twentieth Century comes this landmark new collection for the twenty first century Sisterhood Is Forever with over original essays Morgan commissioned from well known feminist leaders plus energetic Gen X and Y activists is a composite mural of the female experience in America where we ve been where we are where we re going The stunning scope of topics ranges from reproductive health and environmental issues to workplace ineuities and the economics of women s unpaid labor from globalization to the politics of aging from cyberspace violence against women and electoral politics to spirituality the law the media and academia The deliberately audacious mix of contributors spans different generations races ethnicities and sexual preferences CEOs housewives rock stars farmers scientists prostituted women politicians women in prison firefighters disability activists artists flight attendants an army general an astronaut an anchorwoman even a pair of teens who edit a girls magazine Each article celebrates the writer s personal voice her humor passion anger and the integrity of her perspective while offering the latest data on women s status political analysis new how to tools for activism and visionary yet practical strategies for the future strategies needed nowthan ever Robin Morgan s own contributions are everything her readers expect prophetic powerfully argued unsentimentally lyrical From her introduction The book you hold in your hands is a tool for the future a future also in your hands Edna Acosta Beln Carol J Adams Margot Adler Natalie Angier Ellen Appel Bronstein Mary Baird Brenda Berkman Christine E Bose Kathy Boudin Ellen Bravo Vednita Carter Wendy Chavkin Kimberl Crenshaw Gail Dines Paula DiPerna Helen Drusine Andrea Dworkin Eve Ensler Barbara Findlen Mary Foley Patricia Friend Theresa Funiciello Carol Gilligan Sara K Gould Ana Grossman The Guerrilla Girls Beverly Guy Sheftall Kathleen Hanna Laura Hershey Anita Hill Florence Howe Donna M Hughes Karla Jay Mae C Jemison Carol Jenkins Claudia J Kennedy Alice Kessler Harris Clara Sue Kidwell Frances Kissling Sandy Lerner Suzanne Braun Levine Barbara Macdonald Catharine A MacKinnon Jane Roland Martin Debra Michals Robin Morgan Jessica Neuwirth Judy Norsigian Eleanor Holmes Norton Grace Paley Emma Peters Axtell Cynthia Rich Amy Richards Cecile Richards Carolyn Sachs Marianne Schnall Pat Schroeder Patricia Silverthorn Eleanor Smeal Roslyn D Smith Gloria Steinem Mary Thom Jasmine Victoria Faye Wattleton Marie Wilson Helen Zia.