January, 2011

#Mooreandme Worked. So What’s Next?


While we’ve come a long way (baby), all it takes are a few offhand remarks about rape to make it clear how far women still have to go. It can seem obvious to us activists that blaming victims for rape is wrong, that it can take many different forms, that a culture that goes easy on perpetrators makes it more likely for rape to take place. But these are foreign ideas for many people, even staunch progressives. Ignorance, indifference and outright malice about sex crimes still pervade our culture.

So when Michael Moore appeared on Keith Olbermann’s show and called the rape charges against Julian Assage “hooey,” women were outraged. This led to a veritable revolution, orchestrated by blogger Sady Doyle. Doyle used Twitter as a weapon in her fight to make these men open their eyes a fraction about rape. It took an enormous toll on her and dedicated activists, but in the end it got results – Olbermann apologized and Moore, in a televised interview by Rachel Maddow, was able to discuss the rape charges with the nuance he should have used in the first place.

Why was this campaign so effective? Millicent of Millicent and Carla Fran looked at the medium used, Twitter, and concluded that it “has a number of features that level a playing field that tends to push women into the outfield.” The advantages: no audio component, so women’s voices are harder to dismiss and men’s carry less assumed authority; an absence of physical visibility that makes it harder for opponents to attack women’s images over their substance; both the trolls and activists are seen side-by-side, exposing trolls’ abuse of specific women as well as the hollowness of their arguments; and a fluidity that lets many people into the conversation (although also means that certain arguments have to be repeated over and over). It’s a medium that amplifies all voices equally, lending itself well to a David vs. Goliath-esque movement.

Beyond the benefits of Twitter itself, there’s another reason that this worked. Rape culture is a huge problem. It’s insidious, it’s complicated, it’s widespread. Some examples are obvious but they’re often subtle. That’s why it’s called “culture.” Doyle saw one particular instance and decided it was time to make an example, to take a stand, to teach people – particularly our allies on the left – about the harm they cause when they don’t put victims first. Instead of getting bogged down in all the ways that sexism and rape apologism manifest, Doyle and her supporters honed in on a high profile case and directed all of their energy toward it. And it worked. Moore’s ideas about rape clearly evolved. I’m sure many more minds were reached. And I’d bet Keith Olbermann (wherever his next gig may be) will now think carefully when discussing these issues.

And this format is easily repeated. Merritt Martin of Hay Ladies decided to use this tactic against a comedian on MTV, Daniel Tosh of Tosh.o. Tosh devoted a whole episode to rape humor in which victims were the brunt of the jokes. According to Martin’s tally, he was able to cram 30 offensive jokes into a half-hour segment. So up started the hashtag #toshpointno and Tweets directed at his account. The message? Joking about victims diminishes their experiences and adds to a culture that doesn’t always treat rape seriously. Tosh’s jokes were “aggressive, unnecessary and belittling humor that essentially robs the victims (in general as well as those specified) of the fact that they. were. victimized,” wrote Martin. And it’s not that there can never be jokes about rape – just watch Wanda Sykes’ bit about detachable pussies. It’s hilarious! But it doesn’t direct humor AT victims.

Doyle also has a new campaign, this time to reach across the aisle and slap some sense into our new Republican Speaker of the House. He just introduced a new bill, HR3, that is not only dangerous in its desire to restrict access to abortion, but goes even further – it redefines rape exceptions to only include instances of “forcible rape.” Not only does this exclude many kinds of rape – “in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes,” according to a Mother Jones article – but the term “forcible rape” hasn’t even been defined by the federal criminal code. In a word: this bill is dangerous. It threatens to make life even more difficult for rape victims. So Doyle is at it again. As she says, “It’s time to make the Internet a big, scary problem for some sexists, once again.” She created a new hashtag for the movement, #DearJohn, and is directing Tweets to Boehner’s account and all Congressmen who support the bill. “They told us we didn’t count. Imagine their surprise when we all speak up, all at once, to tell them that we do.” Hell yes. The attention on this new definition is already causing some to squirm: the Democrat who co-sponsored HR3 is trying to distance himself from it.

There are plenty of other places we can go. Meredith at The Daily Femme is fed up with prison rape jokes on SVU. Lynn Harris at Salon points out the stigma that still hangs around women with STDs. I’d bet my next five paychecks that this is not the last offensive bill the GOP will dream up. Next time you see something outrageous, consider this: maybe it’s time to wake up some minds. Maybe it’s time to shout down rape apologists. Maybe it deserves its own hashtag.

Not all of these campaigns will necessarily have the same effect as #Mooreandme. We may not be able to get each offender to go on TV and change their story. Daniel Tosh may still choose to make disgusting rape jokes. I doubt a teary-eyed Boehner will apologize for anything. But this is a new model for successful activism against very specific cases of rape apology and rape culture. Instead of a big messy problem that’s hard to wrap our heads around, we can attack something specific and concrete and chip away at the larger problem. We can inform some people and alert others that they’re anti-woman policies are not going unnoticed. We can let them know that this matters. In any way that it manifests.

In Praise of (Non)Imaginary Skins

MTV’s Skins has drummed up some serious controversy thanks to a wildly popular UK predecessor, an eye-catching advertising campaign and consciously salacious storylines. The Parents’ Television Council  and reviewers alike are up in arms about the more explicit nature of the series, which airs on a channel that daily attracts millions of impressionable teen viewers. Advertisers have already pulled out of Skins, in fact, for fear that underage actors engaging in simulated sex and drinking in just about every episode could be construed as child pornography.

As with any movie or series that depicts sex, there is also always that conversation about whether it’s gratuitous or not. In regards to the UK Skins, Feministing’s “7 feminist reasons” is worth checking out to understand how the show successfully toed that line:

6. Teen sex is portrayed with nuance and respect and without hand-wringing and slut-shaming. The lack of moralizing extends to sex as well. And there’s a lot of it in Skins. Some sex is between couples, some is between friends, some is between strangers. Some is emotionally fulfilling, some isn’t. Some is physically satisfying, some isn’t. The girls are just as likely to have casual sex as the guys, and the guys are just as likely to want a relationship as the girls. (Suffice it to say, Skins doesn’t buy into any myths about oxytocin.) Perhaps even more importantly, in Skins, characters of both genders have both committed and casual sex at different times. Kinda like in real life! And because neither guys or girls are defined by their sexual behavior, that’s not at all strange. Skins recognizes that a girl who’s been having lots of emotionally meaningless sex can still get chills when she touches the hand of the boy she’s falling for. As Samhita wrote yesterday, “We all have feelings and we all like to fuck…Deal with it.” And Skins deals with it quite nicely.

Really, I couldn’t have said it better. Yes, Skins can be graphic, but its inclusion of sex and drugs often feel like realistic developments for these teen characters rather than gratuitousness displays of wanton behavior. There seems to be something about showing teens engaging in risque acts that immediately makes it unacceptable, even if it’s realistic and complex.

Much criticism surrounding MTV’s Skins, ironically, is that it is gratuitous even after MTV watered it down from the original UK version. Ms. Magazine‘s blog, in fact, calls the first episode out as sexist. But the beauty of television is that the story and characters don’t stop at the first episode: if MTV plays its cards right, it could follow in the steps of the UK version and create a nuanced, layered world that actually goes in-depth on teen issues rather than stigmatize sex a la Secret Life of the American Teenager.

…OR it could be a massive disappointment and make no strides whatsoever. But only time will tell.

Labels Are For Soup Cans

I am a woman. But what does that possibly mean in this modern society? What defines me? Is it my affiliations: political, religious, and social? Is it my race, body type, education, or socioeconomic standing? How can anyone ever truly define womanhood in any era, let alone in ours with the insistence of being smart, strong, gentle, and outwardly beautiful? Is womanhood ever going to be anything more than a system of applied labels from the outside world?

I am a Jewish woman. Generally when people hear that they will ask “what kind?” As if my desert wandering ancestry is somehow differentiated by which synagogue I attend. The answer is the Jewish kind. I have experiences in all levels of practice, I don’t fit a mold or a sub-type.

I am a liberal woman particularly when it comes to social politics. I believe in a society that believes in the greater good and helping the poor advance. According to some conservative cable news station, that may make me Hitler. Ironic, since I am also Jewish. However, economically – I am not sure where I stand. There is some value to conservative political economic ideas of what to do with our nations growing deficit.

I am a sorority woman. Specifically, a member of a Panhellenic Sorority. That’s one of the big 26. The ones you think of when you think Elle Woods from Legally Blonde .  Depending on your campus experience you may immediately associate me with many stereotypes of vapid party girls, who are only interested in chasing Frat Boys, binge drinking, and tanning. However, in my house there was a large emphasis on women’s campus leadership, charity work, and academics, in addition to the social life. Yes, there were matching tee shirts and Rush songs, but those were small parts of a larger experience. Thinking of me as a Sorority Girl may lead you to label me inaccurately.

So, why am I writing about this here? The thing is, I don’t label myself feminist and I owe it to you to explain further. Yes, this blog is certainly feminist. Books I have read are feminist. I have worked for both the Institute for Women’s Research and Sexual Assault Services on my campus. I am never shy to express my views on gender roles, hetero-normative culture, beauty myths; the thin ideal, and general stereotyping of women. I certainly do not like the idea of being boxed in because of my gender.

Just like being labeled a Sorority Girl can lead others to an image of bleach blonde drunken sluts, being labeled a feminist can conjure images of angry man hating protesters. These images create dividing lines: what kind of woman is the appropriate woman to be, when can you be her, and where? And if I am not her – am I worth your time?

I am a woman, and that doesn’t include a laundry list of outwardly applied labels. Being victimized isn’t a sorority girl at a party thing. Consenting to sex isn’t a feminist thing. Equal, pleasurable, involved consented upon participation is a woman thing.  It’s a man thing. It’s a partners in pleasurable sex thing. And labels don’t have anything to do with that.

We Support Tristan Taormino!

Tristan Taormino, courtesy of sexartandpolitics.tumblr.com

Tristan Taormino, courtesy of sexartandpolitics.tumblr.com

Tristan Taormino, is an author, feminist, award winning pornographer and sex educator, who runs puckerup.com and directs pornography through a feminist lens for Vivid Entertainment. She writes of her professional goals as educating “people of all genders and sexual orientations in their pursuit of healthy, empowering, and transformative sex and relationships.” In tandem with these admirable and important goals, Taormino frequents universities giving lectures on queer issues, gender and feminism.

Recently, Taormino was asked to be the keynote speaker at Oregon State University’s Modern Sex conference, and was later revoked this invitation based on the content of her resume and website. Her impressive resume, which includes lectures at Yale and Columbia, the publication of several books, TV appearances etc. was part of the basis of her “uninvite.” Considering that Taormino is an accomplished author, filmmaker and educator, her silencing by OSU is alarming.

On the matter Taormino said,

“I’m extremely disappointed that OSU has decided to cancel my appearance…I have never misrepresented who I am or what I do. I am proud of all the work I do, including the sex education films and feminist pornography I make,”

Even though Taormino is completely public and unapologetic about her work, OSU deemed her unqualified for their funding after her appearance was booked and her travel arrangements made. (And mind you, without reimbursing her for travel expenses.)

A post on Fleshbot wrote,

“I value her voice and positive message of sexual empowerment and freedom…I’m also quite disturbed by the implication that her affiliation with the adult industry makes her unfit to speak on a public university campus.”

This brings up an important point. Any sex-positive educator or activist has to unfortunately face these challenges, but despite these roadblocks their voices need to be heard. Her censorship is alarming and unacceptable.

The stigma surrounding sexuality, particularly women vocal about sexuality never seems to lose its prevalence, but in pushing boundaries some brave individuals are hopefully changing this. A university setting seems to be a great place to bring up discussions of sex education, sex-positivitiy and sexual diversity, and OSU should be honored to have Taormino speak at their conference, being that she has a strong and prevalent voice on these topics.

MPAA & Blue Valentine.

When Blue Valentine managed to get its NC-17 rating reduced to an R-rating, everyone breathed a sigh of relief. For a second it seemed as though the MPAA realized that its ratings system, which routinely awards violent films PG-13 ratings, but slapped Blue Valentine with an NC-17 rating for a single scene depicting a woman receiving oral sex, is highly hypocritical. But the rating was reduced and so all is well!

…but it’s not, really, is it? As sexologist Dr. Logan Levkoff points out, we live in a culture in which violence, and especially violence towards women, is tolerated to the point that it becomes white noise. Meanwhile, sex remains a taboo topic.

A quick survey of the MPAA film rating system confirms that any nudity or swearing used in a “sexually oriented” manner immediately bumps a film’s rating to R, and it’s sex that bumps it to NC-17 nine times out of ten. As Twitter user @nevpierce put it, “Saw 3D has a woman bisected by buzzsaw. Blue Valentine has a woman orgasm by oral sex. Guess which the US censor will allow teens to see…”

So while the triumph of Blue Valentine’s reduced rating is certainly a victory (and we found a new feminist hero in Ryan Gosling as he publicly slammed the NC-17 rating), the fact that it needed to be reduced at all is indicative of a dangerous double standard in our media. A woman enjoying oral sex received an NC-17 rating while we constantly see men enjoying the same in R or even PG-13 rated movies. And while Black Swan also includes a woman receiving oral sex, the scene (SPOILER) is presented as the product of a fragmented mind. The fact that it was also a woman-on-woman scene perhaps sensationalized it to the point that the MPAA could pretend it wasn’t as “realistic” (…how ratings treat homosexuality could be a post all its own).

What it comes down to is this: media’s representation of people enjoying sex is so skewed towards men that it’s immediately considered problematic when women are portrayed as sexual beings. A woman’s naked body gives a film an R-rating, but a woman (even clothed) enjoying sex can land a film in the no man’s land that is NC-17.

Further, it’s this kind of sexist, terrified-of-women-enjoying-sex stigma that can lead to sexual assault. When we are fetishized as objects but not allowed to enjoy our sexuality in media, we feel the ramifications in our daily lives. It’s high time our media reflects reality, and allows women to be fully-fleshed, sexual beings instead of the sexualized object the MPAA clearly prefers.

Full-On Participipation!

When I say, “my line is all about me, myself, and I!” I mean it. I mean that my line starts right where I begin to doubt whether or not I want to do something. My line is all about what makes me feel comfortable, because as much as I may want to make my partner happy, I should never have to do something I do not want to do. My perfect sexual encounter involves never having to feel like I have to sacrifice my wants for the needs of another. In order to fully enjoy myself, I have to be able to stop when I need to. In order to be a full on participant, and not just “let it happen”, I have to be able to stop when I need to. That’s why, when it comes to my line, it’s all about me.

Giving Girls Choices Around the World

You’ve probably heard of the Girl Effect. It’s the name of a project that the Nike Foundation started in 2008. There’s been quite a lot of press coverage. Big names like Larry Summers, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Farmer have endorsed the concept. The buzz is about data that shows when a developing country invests in young girls, the economic benefits multiply. Give her an education and she’ll start a business, then invest her money in her village and improve their lives while proving that girls are valuable (and making room for more girls to be like her). Data also shows that giving women money has greater benefits than giving it to men – “when women and girls earn income, they reinvest 90 percent of it into their families, as compared to only 30 to 40 percent for a man,” according to The Girl Effect’s fact sheet. The amount of attention focused on the need to invest in women’s education and well-being is almost astonishing and incredibly important. These have been ignored for too long.

But as an Aid Watch blogger pointed out, there are some flaws amid the hype. The project relies on the notion that women are good investments because they are inherently more nurturing and inclined to take care of others. But why are we not addressing “the structural factors that underlie men’s apparent disinterest in the health and education of their children?” Aid Watch asks. Why reinforce the stereotypes of women as caretakers and men as negligent without examining why these roles are so rigid? And by focusing on economic growth as the end goal, as opposed to gender equality in and of itself, it ignores some important issues. Aid Watch points out, “The greatest subordination felt by women is within their own home, yet the girl effect has nothing to say about domestic violence, rape, the wage gap, or the many other systemic problems.”

Perhaps, then, one of the best ways we can empower young girls is to focus on giving them viable choices about sex, not just on how well they take care of others. Give them contraception so that they can choose when and how often to get pregnant. As noted in Half the Sky, a recent book by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn, “122 million women around the world want contraception and can’t get it… up to 40 percent of all pregnancies globally are unplanned or unwanted.” Rather than rely on her to spread her money among many children, give her contraception and she has a better chance of controlling the size of her family and spacing out her pregnancies. Then she can make her money go further and have more agency over her own life. According to the Guttmacher Institute, reducing unplanned pregnancies gives girls more educational and employment opportunities while reducing public sector spending. (Not to mention that condoms save lives. Talk about economic benefits – it costs only $3.50 a year to save a life through distributing condoms and preventing HIV, versus $1,033 to save her life through a treatment program once she has AIDS, according to Half the Sky.) Westerners can help this cause while making the choice to have safe sex themselves by buying Sir Richards Condoms, which will donate a condom to a non-profit in the developing world for every condom they sell. Now that’s a real girl effect!

We also have to address the issues of rape, child marriage and other ways in which women are not in control of their sexual choices. Many women (in developed and developing countries alike) live in an environment that doesn’t value their choices about when and how they want to have sex. Just as it is important to focus at home on combating rape, global aid can help fight the forces that lead to it elsewhere. For example, The Girl Effect rightly focuses on giving girls an education, many of whom aren’t allowed or are unable to attend school. But it’s also important to educate boys about their responsibilities to respect women and their bodies and to educate all about safe and consensual sex.

Meanwhile, these projects depend on the stereotype that women in developing countries need to be saved. As Aid Watch points out, the video invites First World citizens to “fix” the lives of Third World women. “This message gives more agency to Westerners than to the girls it claims to be empowering,” the blog says. Why do we assume we know what they “need” more than they do? Western activists and aid workers have to acknowledge that those who are best able to address their problems are the women themselves. This is why it may be most helpful to focus on giving women as many choices as possible – give her the opportunity to control her reproduction so she can dictate her own life path. There’s clearly a demand for it.

Addressing these concerns means putting a woman’s well-being and equality first. It’s fantastic that empowering women has extra benefits. But it can’t be the only reason we work toward women’s rights around the world. Making sure that women have agency over their lives – particularly over their sexuality – is job number one.

I, the undersigned female…

via boingboing.net

via boingboing.net

The Modern Confessional.

6 in the morning, Client, music video

6 in the morning, Client, music video

Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon.com recently wrote about the modesty of the porn generation and our reluctance to share our porn preferences with our partners. She claims that when it comes to smut, we’re

‘much more shy – and basically more human than the media narrative would have you think’.

In a world where sexuality and sex have become a necessary tools not only in the media, but in politics, the news cycle, and discussions of gender equality, it is important to remember that porn does not, as Natasha Vargas-Cooper claims in The Atlantic, have

‘a pervasiveness and influence on the culture at large’

, rather it is a reflection of the traces of colonial and gendered histories that remain a part of our culture today. Indeed, although Vargas-Cooper somewhat acknowledges this dialectic between accepted cultural norms and history, she also sees male sexuality as a ‘dark force streaked with aggression’ in its ‘natural’ state – that sexuality at its core is bestial and so essentially has more detrimental consequences for women than it does for men. For her, sex-positivity and its egalitarian views of sex is simply a ‘utopian pretension’.

Lauren’s post on Post-Partum Sex Positivity reminds us that the implementation of the ideals of sex-positivity are still problematic, and can, at its worst, be discriminatory and non-inclusive. The recent Nicki Blue virginity-cam debate surrounding kink.com’s marketing decision in the recording of her first experience of vaginal penetration only demonstrates how it can be difficult to reconcile sex-positivity with feminism and vice versa. Clark-Flory’s article suggest that the vulnerability we feel about our sexual preferences, even in our most intimate relationships, mean that despite existing in the age of the modern confessional, real life can be harder to negotiate and

‘sex [in porn and the media] really doesn’t change that much’.

Indeed, where it’s easy for complete strangers to read about your lunch preferences on twitter, and hard-core pornography, as is instantly accessible online, what does it mean that we can get off on videos of S/M sex and double penetration, but feel shyness about sharing these desires with our partners? Is sex-positivity, itself, as Vargos-Cooper seems to suggest, our own unattainable sexual fantasy?

When I think about why I first chose to enter the sex industry, one in which sexism and the objectification of women seems to be the most exaggerated and unapologetic, I remember being conscious of the fact that I was a) embodying a fantasy, particularly as an asian woman who looks younger than her age b) exploiting these oppressive forces for my own financial and personal gain. When you’re working hours in platform heels and a corset, sex isn’t a fantasy, it becomes work, reality, just another job. But initially, to someone else, you’re not real. You’re a figment of the deep part of their imagination, whether they want you to smoke cigarettes into their eyes or smack you because you’re a naughty girl. I’ve watched the moment a first-time customer realises that I’m a person, doing a job – and it came when I elaborated on necessary points of consent for a safe experience, even if it was something as simple as safe words. Being a sex worker, and especially an switch in an s/m dungeon points out to the owners of fantasies that reality can work in much a different way.

I refuse to believe sex-positivity is a fantasy because I know when fantasies are enacted in real life, they can deeply affects relationships and the way sexual activities function – for the better. To assume, like Vargas-Cooper that sex is essentially a reinforcement of ‘natural’ tropes of male dominance and female submission is a cop-out. No one said enforcing sex-positivity was easy. No one said it was going to happen in an instant, no, it requires self-reflection, openness, and slow cultural change. And consent is the element that, when inserted, changes everything It can blur the lines between fantasy and reality. It can make one realise that we have a long way to go despite what the media tells us. And it can make for a fulfilling and egalitarian relationship even if we engage in performances of male dominance and female submission. Sexism can exist in our desires because of the societal structures within which we were raised, and the concepts we’ve inevitably internalised – like I’ve said before, it’s how we engage in those activities that make a difference. A consensual relationship is an egalitarian one, even if what you’re enacting appears to perpetuate the age-old stereotype of the ‘brutal male’ and ‘resisting female’.

What Clark-Flory points out in her post is a ‘shyness’ that goes along with guilt from watching porn – I know from my experiences with partners that in this modern age, that guilt can exist because of the feeling that one is exploiting women, or from wanting to completely separate fantasy from reality because the fantasy seems to be oppressive, or too violent, or too ‘weird’ to share with a real-life partner. To me, however, that seems to be progress. Because it brings up the fact that people are holding on to old misconceptions about porn-watching that need to be changed – but they’re aware, and feeling guilty about their attraction to sexist, extreme, or what they would consider non-respectful pornographic tropes. The guilt doesn’t stem from the porn-watching in and of itself, but the sex-positive view that the separation of fantasy and real-life is something that can be detrimental, and in the worse case, border on non-disclosure in a consensual, real life relationship. I’m not saying that people aren’t entitled to watch porn, or that they have to disclose all the details of their porn-watching habits to their partners. But being open about the type of porn you watch and communicating about how you want porn to play into your relationship, whether as something mostly separate from you and your partner’s sexual life, or something that can be played with, is a step in the right direction – both of these can suddenly make your sexual fantasies a part of reality – even if that’s all they are – fantasies.

Sexual shame, is unfortunately, something that all of us struggle with in our culture every day – particularly in a world where we’re trying to move forward in terms of feminism and sex positivity – there’s suddenly much more to worry about. Consent, and open communication is the only way forward – and I’m not saying these things aren’t hard, but they can be done, and we’re on our way. Let’s not ever give up.

Pop-cultural change: from within!

me senior ball

Hi everyone, I’m Caroline! I like pop culture, popsicles, blogging, biting wit and/or commentary, television and talking…pretty much equally.

My senior year at Smith College was dominated by papers with titles like, “Internalized Sexism and Wedding Crashers” and “Phenomena and Hysteria: The Beatles and Twilight” no matter what the subject…which was when I realized that my passion wasn’t so much in translating Chaucer a la my English major. Instead, I love to dissect popular culture such as celebrity gossip, television and social media, and I want to change it from within.

I heard about The Line through my job blogging and doing social media at Women’s Media Center and for SPARK Summit. I immediately loved it. Though the concept of drawing the line in a sexual situation seems like a no-brainer, we live in a culture that constantly has sexual assault, aggression and rape as punchlines to jokes that are never funny, and should never be made.

Is it funny when your friends’ boyfriends feel entitled to sex anytime anywhere? Is it funny when you wake up to some guy on top of you and you have to wonder what would have happened if you were more tired? Is it funny when it’s late and you want to leave but the person you’re with is stronger and insistent? Never. But I can’t count the amount of times I’ve heard about these situations…or seen them play out in movies or television with a sexy soundtrack or laugh track not far behind.

Hopefully, you’ll see my name on the credits of a hilarious and progressive TV show in the future, but for now I’m so excited to be blogging for The Line! You can also follow me on my Twitter, or join the feminist chat I run for @womensmediacntr, #sheparty (Wednesdays, 3-6 pm EST). Let’s get this dialogue going!

All Posts from January, 2011