In a message dated 97-06-08 16:08:52 EDT, you write: >Second, I think it partly has to do with various types of complacency. >In the case of the reproductive rghts movement, I remember how the >movement groups sort of re-oriented toward issues of access in the early >90s after it became clear that the juridical right to abortion was more >or less safe. All of a sudden, all of these upper-middle-class college >activists lost interest. Not that they didn't think it was important, >they just lost the personal compulsion to stay involved. That and the >fact that, through no fault of their own but simply because of who they >were, they had little connection to the rural and poor urban communities >most affected by dwindling access. For better or worse, this is a group >of people who can mobilize large numbers of their friends, who have the >social connections to get media attention, and who have access to >experienced activists. Their social impact is therefore disproportionate. I disagree--the women's movement was not, is not, and has never been made up of primarily middle class white women with nothing else to do. The middle class women may be the ones getting the press, but feminism has, and has always had, a much broader appeal.. It's also a little insulting to have the hard work of thousands of women dismissed so easily. On the other hand, you seem very comfortable buying the media picture of the women's movement. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
