and withers too easily" ~M.M. Kaye

and there you have it. There are so many personalities, so many groups, so many differences in lifestyle in a female population of over three billion and so many schisms within feminism itself, that it's difficult to bond on a large scale. Cultural thinking divides people into "us" and "them", and there is an infinite variety of "them" out there. Tolerance is a difficult thing to learn.

And yes, I'm guilty of it too. Anyone who's seen me go off on prostitution abolitionists knows this. It's hard to form a bond of sisterhood with people you consider to be enablers at best and murderers at worst.

There's a radfem on my Facebook who blames patriarchy for everything but the lunar eclipse, considers any sexual interest/contact between men and women to be oppressive and/or coerced, and thinks the world male population should be reduced to 5%. Frightening on many levels, and not at all what I consider to be empowering or promoting equality. I have trouble bonding with people like this as well.

I'm not going to share the thoughts that go through my head when I see Mormon women around here with 7 or 8 children. They aren't nice thoughts.

So yeah, I'm still working on the idea of universal sisterhood myself, and not always succeeding. Sometimes it's pretty near impossible. I have to remind myself that we are all human before we are men or women, and "human" is the most important label. I find it easier to bond on the level of "human" than on any other, divisive, description. I find if I'm going to be tolerant, supportive and accepting, it can't be based on any group. Groups, by their very nature, exclude.

It's late and I'm rambling. YMMV as usual.

(but, reality, this is most all people), when it actually comes down to sitting and talking with another, connecting with that person, we can see the one of us, in the other. the lite. where ego does not come into play (choices).

so, on this i go back to what you say that the empowerment starts with ourselves and ripples out.

when looking at a person from a distance, not much is heard, so it is much harder to connect.

you and i have had battle, with the prostitution issue. but, i am also aware that a sentence here or there on the net does not really connect with all you have experienced, and how i truly see it and my experience. i can certainly understand your position.

to overlook things that we find repellent from a distance.

My best friend is a Mormon conservative. We both have to practice extreme tolerance. I find I can be accepting of her where I cannot be with strangers who are equally religious and equally conservative- two things I have little patience for. Easy to understand her because I love her, harder to understand the Jane Doe Mormon shepherding eight small, rowdy children through the mall.

This article is really interesting to me.

I actively struggle *against* the idea of a "common sisterhood"... the idea that somehow I am supposed to be "connected" to all women? And in my head, I am like... "But why? Just because we all have vaginas?"

The whole idea of any kind of "women's groups" makes me cringe. I have never connected strongly with my gender (though I identify as female), and it confuses me sometimes.

I am wondering if maybe I have this problem to some degree:

i have women friends that have always had women friends. i have always, with pride, said i mostly hang with boys/men. why? i started seeing i had this issue a couple years ago. it has made me think and made me reflect on the role i have played in this, too.

i hear ya.

i am learning, there is a way.

I also have trouble with the idea of "connecting" with all women just because of gender. For one thing, Ann Coulter is a woman. Michelle Bachmann is a woman. Melissa Farley is a woman. The only thing I can see connecting with these women is my spit. I don't think this is an attempt by me to ingratiate myself with a majority or gain acceptance- it's pure disgust with their patriarchal cheerleading.

I can connect with them, in a way, as fellow human beings but not in any other way. Certainly not in acceptance of them as part of a sisterhood- we share nothing but genital configuration and that's not enough for me.

It's incredible that, after all the progress that women have made, men still expect them to give up their birth names and become "Mrs. Michael Jones," for example, and loose every shred of their identity except their sex. Could there be more fairness in our culture if men were asked to imagine themselves as a "Mr. Michaela Jones"? Hyphenation may not seem graceful to some people, but I think they are really just afraid to abandon the patriarchal tradition, giving up the chance to honor everybody's heritage.
I encountered this video recently and had to share it, a portrait of the dearth of options women have