you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Soccer Moms = B*****s Ain’t Shit

The Wikipedia entry for “Soccer Mom” is perfect. “Soccer Mom” used to refer to educated, upper middle class women who micromanage their children in lieu of a career*. Because shit always rolls downhill, however, now the derogatory term is smacking all of us who have children who play sports. Of course, if we never went to our children’s games, we’re uncaring, unfit, drunken shrews who spend the time our children are on the field lying under the kitchen sink surrounded by empty bottles of children’s liquid cold medicine. As usual, we can’t win. Why can’t we attend our children’s soccer games and run a meth lab in our kitchen? I do hate the limitations that are always put on mothers.

Flea on being a soccer mom

After all that’s happened in recent weeks, it is feeling so good to me just to read and enjoy the words of women whose lives have touched mine via their good writings.   Nobody writes about being a mother the way Flea does.

Heart

Discussion

45 thoughts on “Soccer Moms = B*****s Ain’t Shit

  1. She is brilliant, and absolutely correct.😀

    Posted by Anji Capes | September 9, 2007, 10:07 am
  2. Why can’t we attend our children’s soccer games and run a meth lab in our kitchen? I do hate the limitations that are always put on mothers.</blockquote

    HA! Flea’s a hoot!

    Posted by Gayle | September 9, 2007, 12:52 pm
  3. I am not grasping who is translating soccer moms as code for bitches ain’t shyt. Women or men, or both women and men?

    Posted by E. K. "Kitty" Glendower | September 9, 2007, 7:22 pm
  4. Kitty, I think the “soccer moms” stereotype is code for b******(can’t type that word, sorry!) ain’t shit for misogynists just in general. Whatever works to hate on women will do. If a woman is rich and stereotypically beautiful, hate her for that; if she’s poor and not stereotypically beautiful, hate her for that. If she’s a mother, find reasons why she is lousy at it and doesn’t deserve to be one; if she’s not a mother and doesn’t want to be one, she must have rejected her god-ordained role, hate her for that, or maybe she’s a lesbian, dear god, call 911. If she works outside the home, she neglects her kids who will grow up to be axe murderers or at least petty criminals and druggies. If she’s a SAHM she’s a lazy freeloader who eats bon bons and watches Jerry Springer all day while her poor husband slaves away.

    And so on.

    Dismissing or hating on white, afflluent SAHMs for their excesses and privilege by calling them “soccer moms” has had the effect, flea’s saying, of making every mother, no matter who she is, feel like shit and defensive if her kids play sports and she goes to watch them (because she must be one of those dreaded soccer moms or at the very least, she is a smother mother and overly invested in what her kids do; god, she’s probably one of those mothers that screams at the ref and embarrasses her kid!) Of course if she doesn’t go watch her kids play, she’s a shitty mother, selfish and neglectful, what, she had kids and she doesn’t even go to their GAMES?!

    Anybody who doesn’t really like women (including themselves, if they are women) can pick up one of the above weapons of choice and clobber some woman with it just for shits and giggle. Of course, there are white, affluent, SAHMs who *are* privileged and whom it is admittedly very easy to resent and even hate for living in what appears to be the lap of luxury. They are women too, though, and therefore they are no less likely to be targeted for sexism than any other women, no less likely to be or to have been incested/raped/molested/sexually
    harrassed/objectified/trivialized/battered/abused by partners/fathers/priests/pastors/bosses, no less likely to be subjected to sexism in school, in college, in jobs, at the hands of doctors, in childbirth, at the hands of pharmacists they’ve had, and all the rest. It’s just easier to get away with hating white, privileged SAHMS than it is to get away with hating other women, so they hate away freely, and it trickles down and affects all sorts of women who have never been “soccer moms” by the traditional definition a day in their lives but whose kids want to play soccer and the moms want to go watch them!

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 9, 2007, 9:54 pm
  5. Heart,

    Thanks for articulating this so eloquently.
    🙂

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | September 9, 2007, 10:12 pm
  6. Thank you for explaining. I get muddled when I see the word SUV or any siding with SUVs. It is code for me. It makes me too defensive because SUVS are literally, symbolically, and metaphorically images that scream intrusion, a crossing of boundaries that I cannot tolerate and one that incites my most primitive defenses. I am sure there is some transference going on, possibility even a rape transference, but that is just giving others ammunition to dismiss my words and call me crazy.

    Posted by E. K. "Kitty" Glendower | September 9, 2007, 10:13 pm
  7. I hear you, Kitty, re SUV! Can we say EXCESS. And don’t even get me started with “Hum-Vs, I have something like the reaction you describe to those! I think the stereotype of soccer moms isn’t so much that they drive SUVs but that they drive minivans, but if they drive SUVs, that makes “them” (i.e., the stereotype) even easier to hate.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 9, 2007, 10:23 pm
  8. Thank you, Heart!

    You probably already know this, but “Bitches Ain’t Shit” is the title of a hip hop song by Dr. Dre. Very popular amongst our nation’s fine upstanding young men.

    In the future, please follow me around and translate for me. Back at the ranch, I seem to have confused a woman who thinks the point of what I wrote was that I think women who wear cardigans and drive SUVs are “less of a woman” than I am.

    Because you know I’m all about asserting my ultimate feminine power over other women. Fear me!

    Posted by flea | September 9, 2007, 11:50 pm
  9. Flea, figures. :p

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    And you’re welcome! Thanks for causing me to LMAO reading your post last night. 😀

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 10, 2007, 1:25 am
  10. I love my minivan!

    Posted by palofmine | September 10, 2007, 5:59 am
  11. Flea is completely awesome. And, may I add, a native South Carolinian! Wish she would move back, we could use her here.

    Posted by Ann Bartow | September 11, 2007, 12:23 am
  12. Sam at Genderberg e-mailed me asking that in addition to linking to Flea’s post on motherhood, as I have here, I comment on Flea’s politics and work. In response, I would refer readers to the links on Flea’s blog to her shop, where you can read, view, and make your own decisions.

    I have many woman friends whom I respect, appreciate and love whose beliefs and politics are 180 degrees from each other, heck, maybe 350 degrees, which makes them almost touching. Heh. Wry heh. I have woman friends who are San Francisco leather dykes and for whom SM is a lifestyle. I have woman friends who are prostituted. I have woman friends who are fundamentalist Christians. I have friends who are transmen and transwomen. I have friends who really ARE soccer moms, who are Republicans, who voted for Bush. I have woman friends whose views on so, so many things differ from my own. My disagreements with them do not prevent me from appreciating the good things about them, the good feminist work they do, or from caring for them and wanting good things for them, just in general. I love women. Women are my people. Even women who disagree with me about things I believe to be important– like pornography. Like prostitution. Like SM. Like fundamentalist Christianity.

    Flea was a founder of the Margins boards, a member of the boards when they were still private, not public yet, years ago when we met on the Ms boards. I knew we had some differences. Always the stinker, for example, for months and months she had as a sig line on the Ms boards, “Now reading Scapegoat by Andrea Dworkin.” After a few months she changed the sig line to read, “Now reading Stephen King. Forget Scapegoat.” Eventually, our differences and various conflicts and problems on the Margins resulted in flea leaving and never going back. Nevertheless, I was around when we were all urging flea to, dammit, pee in the cup and let us know if she is pregnant! Again! :-p I was around when she started her blog, one of the first of us to start a blog. I’ve followed her journey as a feminist mother, trying to do her best by her boys. When I went through some really hard times because my abusive ex was moving back to live near me after 11 years’ absence, she and char and my friend, Sophia, and other Margins women put a care package together for me full of stuff from Flea’s shop– soap, lotions, bath salts, body powder with a feather brush, stuff I would never buy for myself, even if I could afford it, which I can’t. So I am connected to Flea, through and despite our differences. I think her writings on motherhood, especially, are worth reading.

    I believe it is possible to appreciate and love a woman and to want and continue to have some connection with her, however fragile it might be from time to time, even if I deeply and gravely disagree with some of what she is doing or advocating for. I think it’s possible to link to really good work she does, writing she does, even if I cannot agree with other work she is doing, even if I find it disturbing and troublesome. Even if, from time to time, she behaves like an asshole– to me!

    That’s why my blogroll looks like it does, you know? There is everything on there from woman preachers to fundamentalist Christians (friends from my old world) to sex positive bloggers with whom I disagree 90 percent of the time, who have had nothing kind to say to or about me for months or years, but who in my opinion sometimes write in ways which I believe will support, encourage, and help other women who might not be able to get that support otherwise.

    If I restricted my list of friends, my blogroll, my circle, my blogging, writing and linking practices, to those with whom I am mostly in agreement, then I’d have to go the slim-to-no blogroll and zero-to-few friends route, which, honestly, a few very fine feminist women end up taking. They end up, because of the intensity of their devotion to certain principles and politics, painting themselves into what would feel like for me a lonely corner, surrounded by women who agree with them. There are some benefits to that, but there are some, in my opinion, huge downsides to that, as well. I have consciously and deliberately chosen not to live that way, not to conduct my personal or professional or political life that way. I understand why other women take a different approach, but this is my approach. I’ve lived long enough now, for one thing, to see women change their minds, to change my own mind, and to wonder what the heck I might have been thinking about when I cut them out of my life because we disagreed.

    So, Sam, here’s what I got. You know I have deep respect for you and for your work.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 12, 2007, 6:26 pm
  13. I get that Heart. And you do live that here which I much admire. But when a person, any person, makes her/his living (or any portion of it) off SM porn while they’re telling us (implicitly) that it’s just good fun and CHOICE, then I know where they’re coming from and tune out at the very least.

    Posted by Sis | September 12, 2007, 6:46 pm
  14. Yeah, Sis, and I get that. And I also definitely have my own limits. There are some people who will never get linked here. There are some people I will never mention, acknowledge, read, and will forevermore tune out and some of them are women. I acknowledge that I am completely arbitrary and inconsistent when it comes to women I have walked alongside and care about. I totally get why that would be troublesome to others and don’t fault anybody for not being able to agree, and for tuning out when I link.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 12, 2007, 6:49 pm
  15. Heart,

    If it were not for women like you, those of us who want to live in a lesbian separatist world will never be able to get there.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | September 12, 2007, 7:07 pm
  16. That’s a whole lot of responding to stuff I didn’t write. For example, I’ve never asked or implied that you should “restrict my list of friends, my blogroll, my circle, my blogging, writing and linking practices, to those with whom I am mostly in agreement”, I said that it’s irresponsible for you as a radfem and personal friend of flea’s to ignore her promotion of prostitution when few others are as well situated as you to hold your friend accountable.

    You say you “think it’s possible to link to really good work she does, writing she does, even if I cannot agree with other work she is doing” but what I took issue with was you entirely leaving out mention of ‘the other work she is doing’ when it contributes to the sexist and racist oppression so many women and girls experience.

    The F Word blog has a good example up of how you can give praise to a feminist’s good work while not forgetting about that feminist’s bad work:

    http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/september#001154

    Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, passed away a couple of days ago.

    I know lots of people have been turned off by the Body Shop in the past few years, annoyed at how many there are (almost as ubiquitous as *that* coffee shop), the fact that it appears to be like any other commercial enterprise now, and especially cynical about its decision to be bought out by L’Oréal, which tests on animals and is part-owned by Nestlé. But still. You have to admit that receiving one of those gift packs of body butters is quite a treat. And the Body Shop is still an ethical choice for your products in many ways. And that is one of her most important legacies: Anita Roddick helped make ethical consumption fashionable and mainstream before being green was really quite cool.

    By all means, give props to your friend’s writing abilities on parenting, just don’t elide the facts about her legitimizing the consumption of prostituted women as if it is an incidental fact not worth mentioning when promoting her blog to your radical feminist readers.

    Posted by Sam | September 13, 2007, 10:08 pm
  17. Sam, my comment was written in response to your e-mail but included all sorts of thoughts I had as a result of reading what you had to say. I thought of publishing your e-mail but thought better of it. If you want to post it as a comment, feel free. I used it as a springboard to offer my own thoughts, which went far beyond what you included in your e-mail to me.

    I think you give readers, and women in general, here too little credit. Anybody who goes to flea’s blog as a result of my blog post is going to see her “Adults’ Only” link to the right. They will then make up their own minds about what she is doing and believes, what her feminism is. I was “eliding” nothing; I’m writing about Flea’s parenting articles, not the entirety of her life and work. If the day comes when I feel I need to offer lists of caveats and cautions as to everything I find problematic in a woman’s work — including most radical feminists — in order to link to them, I’ll have to stop linking to anybody.

    I don’t see it as my obligation to “hold my friends accountable.” You may see that as your obligation, as a feminist; I don’t. I see it as my obligation to speak my own truth, to offer my own analysis and critiques, to make very clear what my own position is. Other women, my friends included, will do the same, and women will make up their own minds about all of it in the end.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 13, 2007, 10:36 pm
  18. Also, if I wanted to post the short note I wrote to you here I would have. That I didn’t was me trying to graciously hold you, my friend, accountable for what I believe was a poor decision.

    Posted by Sam | September 13, 2007, 10:38 pm
  19. Beyond that, I don’t even know what “holding my friends accountable means.” That’s fundie speak to me. All the years I was a fundie, it was all about all of us “holding one another accountable,” which usually meant bullying one another in various ways in an attempt to keep one another in line and ratting on anybody who didn’t do the same. If I were to post a link to Flea’s article, then offer a caveat, “However, I disagree with this, this and this,” why bother to link to flea’s article at all? She doesn’t need that type of damning-with-faint-praise kind of referral and I don’t want to be that kind of referrer. I think she does good writing on parenting, I said so, people who read here can make up their own minds about what else she does (and I know I said that, but still). There is not going to be any doubt, in anybody’s minds, if they read here, what my own stand is as to pornography, prostitution, any of it.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 13, 2007, 10:43 pm
  20. Well, Sam, you’ve held me accountable, which is what you believe to be right. With that in mind, thanks. I will think about what you’ve had to say.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 13, 2007, 10:45 pm
  21. As an anti-SM anti-porn radfem and a personal friend of flea’s, I disagree that she promotes prostitution. I’m not prepared to debate why that is and so on grounds of unfairness (“I won’t talk about it lalalala but I’m right!”) I would normally be quiet and leave it to those arguing the subject of porn and prostitution to settle without my $.02.

    Still, this seems a good time and place to mention that were I personally in Heart’s shoes, having been “called on” recommending a blog post of flea’s, I’d disagree with the very premise that she does what you say she does, Sam.

    IOW, I agree with you in general but not in particular and therefore wouldn’t and don’t feel compelled to add disclaimers to my support of flea.

    That your opinion varies doesn’t bother me except where it assumes mine is wrong. :p

    Posted by funnie | September 13, 2007, 11:16 pm
  22. I really don’t want to get into an argument here, in this thread, or anywhere on my blog, about flea and what she does or doesn’t do. That’s why I said, women going to her blog could decide for themselves. I’m not saying you want to argue that here, funnie, I’m just providing a heads up that I don’t want to go there, here.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 13, 2007, 11:22 pm
  23. Sorry, yeah. I agree.

    If you want to take it down, that’s OK. I can exercise enough self-restraint to be quiet rather than saying “I’m not arguing, but…” which IS unfair.

    Posted by funnie | September 13, 2007, 11:31 pm
  24. Every time feminists ask men to hold other men accountable for the harm they do we acknowledge that since men listen to other men as they don’t listen to women it is especially crucial for men to tell each other as often as they can and in as many ways as they can,“This thing you’re doing hurts women and you ought to stop.”

    People have an obligation to each other as social citizens, and members of a group have an influence with each other outsiders can’t access. I know it’s hard to challenge one’s friends but that’s how the world changes. Or doesn’t, as the case may be.

    Posted by Sam | September 14, 2007, 12:03 am
  25. Yes, it is crucial for men to do that, and to do so mostly in public so that their actions extend beyond a one-to-one tsking, undermining *rape culture* as a whole.

    Posted by funnie | September 14, 2007, 12:37 pm
  26. What you’ve said makes sense Sam. I’m not speaking here for Heart, or even for me since this isn’t my blog: but tell me, does what you say hold for YOU TOO and can we excoriate you in the blogosphere for how we think you’ve come up short on your own rule of behaviour?

    Posted by Sis | September 14, 2007, 2:36 pm
  27. Sure, feel free to send me an email like I sent Heart an email.

    Posted by Sam | September 14, 2007, 4:01 pm
  28. Sam, just so we’re clear, in your e-mail you said you thought I should publicly have said something about what flea sells. In other words, yes, you e-mailed me, but you asked that I do something which was public. Which I did.

    In other words, it’s not as though you e-mailed me because there was something you and I needed to work out privately between us. You e-mailed me because you felt it was wrong that I posted the link to flea’s article without also noting what she sells in her shop, and so on. I’m making this point because my comment here was my response to your request that I comment publicly.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 4:06 pm
  29. Hard to know how to proceed, though, when one woman’s graciousness in addressing public problems privately is another woman’s irresponsibility in failing to make them public.

    Posted by funnie | September 14, 2007, 4:08 pm
  30. I think it’s good to e-mail privately first, when you care about someone, respect them, and so on. I do that, and I think that is what you do. I’m just saying that to me, it’s a problem when our e-mails have to do with issues around something that has happened (or not happened) publicly. Then we can go back and forth privately in e-mail — in this case about flea, which I was not inclined to do — or we can respond publicly in a way which acknowledges the e-mailer’s concern. Which is what I did do.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 4:14 pm
  31. Here’s some examples from my own history. I have, on a couple of occasions, e-mailed Twisty and Amanda over concerns about something they had posted. When I e-mailed them, I didn’t really expect an e-mail back. For one thing, it takes time to e-mail, it’s sort of aggravating to formulate a response when an e-mail is confrontational, an e-mail is an e-mail trail and often, you don’t want to leave a paper/e-mail trail for various reasons. I know that. What I hoped was that my concern would make its way into their public blog somehow, because my concern *was* over what they wrote publicly. But because I did respect them I didn’t want to say anything publicly without e-mailing them first.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 4:21 pm
  32. “Sure, feel free to send me an email like I sent Heart an email.”

    We tried that. You’ve got egg on your chin there, just to the left of your lip.

    Posted by Sis | September 14, 2007, 4:27 pm
  33. The part I don’t get:

    Woman 1 privately communicating with Woman 2 the fact that 1 is aggrieved that 2 does not communicate her complaints against Woman 3 in public and that is in fact irresponsible to fail to bring up this grievance every time she mentions 3.

    I don’t have a general problem with emailing concerns privately, I just don’t get privately communicating THIS one, where Sam’s point (as I understood it) was that the particular subject matter is of such grave concern that it must be made public, every time.

    It reminds me of the logic of all those now-former Bush Administration officials who were supposedly so appalled by certain facts being withheld from the public that they’re now discussing how CRITICAL this info was to the public in their big-money books…now that the ship has sailed on the war and they’ve resigned.

    Maybe it’s critical info for the public to know, and maybe it isn’t. But you have to think that if the person really thought it was THAT critical to publish THEY would have shared it in a timely manner, rather than “graciously” dealing with problems internally…

    Posted by funnie | September 14, 2007, 4:43 pm
  34. Well, yeah. Actually, Sam was timely– she e-mailed me when this post was fairly fresh. Her choice was to (1) comment to this thread in a confrontational way and be a wet blanket while arguing with me publicly, too, without first giving me an opportunity to possibly agree with her and add her concerns, or (2) give me the benefit of the doubt, iow, possibly I, for some reason, forgot to say something I meant to say, didn’t realize what flea was selling in her shop, or something like that. So rather than barge in and say, “Hey, Heart, why are you doing THIS?!” She thought, well, maybe ____________ or ____________, so I better e-mail her first.

    That’s the way I tend to think in situations like this.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 4:59 pm
  35. This comment section has turned into “so not good for public view.” I hate this in-fighting.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | September 14, 2007, 5:00 pm
  36. Yup. On some other blogs it remains private. Oh wait…

    Posted by Sis | September 14, 2007, 5:05 pm
  37. funnie:

    But you have to think that if the person really thought it was THAT critical to publish THEY would have shared it in a timely manner, rather than “graciously” dealing with problems internally…

    My understanding is that Sam, in first approaching Heart privately, wanted to give Heart the opportunity to make her own public denunciation of Flea’s activities, as a caveat to her praise. I don’t think Sam intended that she herself should be the one to make Flea’s anti-feminist work publicly known, here, on this blog. I do not believe that Sam would have taken her complaint to the blog if Heart had not posted comment 12, in which she alluded to the request Sam had made, but politely declined to fulfill it.

    Posted by justicewalks | September 14, 2007, 5:07 pm
  38. That’s fair, all of what you’ve written, funnie and Heart. It was because I knew the rule of “I really don’t want to get into an argument here, in this thread, or anywhere on my blog, about flea and what she does or doesn’t do.” that I wrote the email and didn’t expect an immediate public response but hoped for the topic to be broached here at some point.

    This isn’t about a vegan friend who still wears the leather boots she’s had for years, it’s about a “feminist pornographer” doing media rounds feeding consumer desire and promoting mainstream, unsafe sex practice pornography under the rubric of feminism so more hitherto reluctant women become porn consumers. http://www.honeysuckleshop.com/Press.htm

    Women on the old Ms Boards told me her sex shop was feminist and I didn’t remember seeing pornography for sale when I made my order, but when it was pointed out to me some months later I felt misled. It would have mattered to me to know she sold pornography when anti-pornography women on the Ms Boards were providing links to her.

    Posted by Sam | September 14, 2007, 5:07 pm
  39. Yeah, that’s what I figured, Sam. I wasn’t promoting buying things from flea’s shop, though, I was just enjoying her writing on parenting. Anyone going to the link and clicking on her shop would see for themselves what was there. (I know I’ve said that, but I’m saying this in response to what happened to you on the Ms boards, which does suck a fair amount. You don’t want to unwittingly be financially contributing to something you can’t support, particularly on the say-so of radfems.)

    I alluded to your e-mail because it is, honestly, the only reason I brought up your concerns. As justicewalks suggests (I think, correct me if I’m wrong, jw), I wanted to acknowledge your concerns publicly, even though I didn’t really agree with them. I agreed with them *enough*, in other words, and had enough respect for you, to publicly acknowledge the issues you’d raised at least in some way.

    I know, Kitty, infighting sucks. But sometimes things come up and it’s best to let them play out. Otherwise we open ourselves up for all sorts of shenanigans in other venues. I’m a huge advocate for creating a public record of how disagreements are handled, if the disagreement is about something that has been publicly posted. That way, we can always go back and say, “read this, this is what happened.”

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 5:37 pm
  40. No misunderstanding at all, Heart. In fact, I started to include a similar caveat on my own post; I certainly didn’t want to misrepresent your or Sam’s positions.

    Posted by justicewalks | September 14, 2007, 6:08 pm
  41. Of course Flea could put an end to this whole issue by stopping selling porn at her shop. Then a whole lot of women who are feeling uncomfortable and conflicted and at odds with one another about this could find some relief and better still there would be one less outlet profiting from the destruction and exploitation of women’s bodies.

    Posted by delphyne | September 15, 2007, 11:15 pm
  42. Here, here, delphyne.

    Posted by justicewalks | September 16, 2007, 2:18 am
  43. I don’t think Flea cares what we think. We aren’t her target market. Our ‘logo’ isn’t on that opening page.

    Posted by Sis | September 16, 2007, 6:29 am
  44. My self preservation instincts warn me to stay out of this, but I can’t. Flea stood up for me when it really mattered, and she is a person I have been able to talk about porn with across our differences, see for example:

    http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=373

    Knowing her only through her posts and comments, I regard her as a decent and good hearted person.

    Posted by Ann Bartow | September 16, 2007, 4:10 pm
  45. Ann, I always wish you’d comment more just in general and appreciate it when you do!

    I’m afraid that we might be on the tipping point of making this a “discuss/debate flea” thread, something I don’t want to have happen. I think women have weighed in on both/all sides and we all have a good idea where we all stand.

    With respect and good will towards all of you, I’m going to turn the comments off now.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 16, 2007, 6:45 pm

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,261 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos