.... And Just *Whose* .. 'Biology is Destiny'
around here anyway?
I
have come to believe….that female biology – the diffuse intense sensuality
radiating out from the clitoris, breasts, uterus, vagina; the lunar cycles of
menstruation; the gestation and friction of life which can take place in the
female body – has far more radical implications than we have yet come to
appreciate. Adrienne Rich, 1977
Patriarchy
has been reconstructing women to “fit” or conform to male (ie human)
biological norms and benchmarks for millennia. One of the first bits of
female biology to start reconstruction was motherhood, more recently
sexuality and sexual identity has been included in the Erasure.
1.
Reproduction
With
the female components of biological reproduction, the final chapters of reconstruction
are almost complete with the introduction of assisted reproduction
technologies and associated laws governing them. Childbirth was the first to
be reconstructed by males, leading to the tortured deaths of millions of
women over more than two centuries in Europe,
as pointed out in Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born .
Birthing had to be at male convenience, and by male design, whether of
domesticated animals or of women. It was treated by men as similar to a
stubborn bowel obstruction, as that is how their bodies work. Males can’t do
it – therefore it is an aberration, a ‘Misfit’ piece of awkward non-male and
therefore non-human biology that needs some sort of surgery to ‘fix’. If
physical surgery/reconstruction won’t fix it – then social surgery will have
to do.
As
Mary Daly pointed out in her discussion of the characteristics of the
Sado-Ritual Syndrome , such
torture rituals usually start in the upper and middle-classes, become
fashionable and spread downward over time. The first women to submit to the
knives and torture of the man-midwives in the middle-ages, were the royal wives of European nobility. No
wonder women welcomed and demanded the introduction of chloroform by the 19th
Century. Women in modern Western hospitals of 1999, still routinely have
their genitals mutilated during hospital childbirth. British feminists
have established support groups for women who have suffered major genital
damage as a result of such mutilations, as damaging as rape and often more
so. It is exactly the same as FGM,
it is another long historical cultural tradition of cruelty to women. It is
no wonder then, that many women having been mutilated in one childbirth, or fearing such mutilation after
hearing the stories of their sisters, mothers, friends - would prefer,
request, choose and even demand aneasthetised Caesarian section. By late 20th
Century, we have midwives charged with child endangerment, or in some places,
midwifery is even illegal with heavy criminal penalties attached. But we
don't burn them at the Stake anymore. For even amongst other primates,
and many other higher mammals on earth,
the oldest female profession is midwifery, not prostitution,
that came much later in human (ie male) social constructions.
However,
less well known is a similar Sado-Ritual Syndrome surrounding lactation.
Although many women will continue to whisper their testimony to the
whole-body not-quite-sexual eroticism of breastfeeding in kaffee-klatsches
and suburban play-group centres, most Western women still don’t breastfeed or
if they do, not for very long. ie.
"the minimum
necessary". One friend of mine,
said “Don’t ever tell men how you feel, or they will force us to cut off our
breasts at puberty.” Its like women are not allowed to enjoy any bits
of their bodies, that do
not conform or correspond to a male biological counterpart. Mothers who breastfeed for too long, too often, or in public (ie
male spheres) are seen as an aberration. Despite a push by women's
health-workers in recent decades to reverse this process, it has been less
than successful. As with childbirth, males can’t do it – therefore it
is an aberration, a ‘Misfit’ piece of biology that needs some sort of surgery
to ‘fix’. If physical and medical surgery/reconstruction won’t fix it – (as
in remove it like an “unneccessary”intestinal appendix), then social surgery will have to do.
Previous
generations, in the middle-ages and through the nineteenth century saw
upper-class women abandoning breastfeeding of their own children, and so it
was left to servant and slave-women to do it, the invisible 'wet-nurses'. In
the 20th century, the removal of breastfeeding by the formula-bottle, allowed
many more women in all socio-economic classes to abandon such stigmata of
lower-class slavery.
With recent technological
advances, we are just beginning to see the beginnings of the removal of
pregnancy. Upper-class wealthy women can hire a surrogate womb, just as
previous generations hired wet-nurses. Like the wet-nurses, the gestational
mother, or surrogate 'womb-for-rent' is the least paid, the least visible,
the least valued and is given at best, token respect for her altruism. So is the nanny or au-pair, and the day-care creche workers,
and the pre-school kindy teachers, who are amongst the lowest paid and lowest-status workers. With recent high-profile
trials of murderous and incompetent nannies, we can't even trust our servant
classes to be mothers anymore. But not to worry, within 30-50 years, maybe
earlier or later, it can be taken over by machinery for all socio-economic
classes and that mythical all-powerful, pregnant, child-feeding,
child-tending, or child-teaching woman can be completely dispensed with. And
good riddance, is heard by all.
Its interesting to me at least,
when I heard discussion recently on the new splits of biological ‘mothers’ –
ie. genetic mother, the
gestational mother and the social mother. Men of course, can also be genetic
parents, and social parents, hence these roles are valued accordingly.
However, the mental gyrations that masculinist biologists had to go
through to ‘reconstruct’ the process of female ovum donation to be conform
and be parallel to male sperm donation is mind-boggling. Young, healthy,
pretty American and British women can now sell their ova via the internet. ‘Its no different to sperm
donation’, they say.
Excuse
me? When women can donate their ova via a 5-minute wank, I’ll believe that.
So men and women are equal as genetic parents, in this
social reconstruction, if you can reconstruct the ovum to sperm as directly
equal and equivalent pieces of biology. This Erases
the critically important organelles of the ovum, including its own DNA
separate to the cell nucleus. We can of course socially and surgically
minimise and remove that from the equation, in order to force the concept in
our brains that they indeed are exactly the ‘same’. Again, human (ie male)
reconstruction of the facts of biology, physics and chemistry, in order to
make it “fit” the way male bodies function.
But
males can’t gestate at all, or even come close, so the gestational female is
the least valued, and worse for her, she can’t be reconstructed to fit a male
biological ‘norm’. A Total Misfit. As with lactating
women, she must reconstruct herself to do it the way males can do it, or if
that’s not possible, rendered invisible in a backroom in purdah, or held in
social limbo, until
such time as we can dispense with her altogether. The legal
ramifications are the most mind-boggling on pregnant women, for 9 months they
are in legal limbo, ie not human, because there is no male biological
counterpart. Courts scratch their heads. She doesn’t “fit”. Especially
surrogates. Therefore she/it does not exist, not human, and hence logically,
no human rights.
As with Daly's analysis about how such mechanisms are enforced -
we could argue that the USA
as a dominant world cultural force. The
"upper-class" of all nations and cultures, so to speak. The
adoption of commercial surrogacy, and its legalisation and promulgation in
the USA during the 1980's and 1990's is not universally followed by other
countries as yet - but the pressure is building, and will obviously be
adopted by the rest of the world sooner or later, as it becomes more
successful and cheaper.
Every
psycho-analytical theory from Freud onwards, including some feminist theory,
has claimed that mother-child bonding is somehow detrimental to humans.
Particularly if prolonged beyond the ‘minimum necessary’, which is defined at
the limits of masculine biological/social capability.
So
it should be discouraged, and de-valued to that male-defined ‘minimum
necessary’ for the maintenance of physical health of the infant, and no more.
Women have been encouraged for generations to ‘separate’ themselves from the
child/infant at younger and younger ages (just like men do). Eventually, we
all hope, the minimum necessary will be nothing at all. The feminist
theorists however, go on to say that it isn't the mother's fault - its just a by-product of
primitive biology and sexism, and technology and greater participation in
'real-life’ (ie male or ‘human’ lifestyles) will get rid of the whole messy
business eventually.
So
we forgive the mother for her sins, whilst still calling motherhood itself a
sin, and biological motherhood, the most sinful of all. At best, we support
the inclusion of fathers in the social parenting role, to try and rid
parenthood of its all-powerful bad-mother female image. But even men who do
take an active participatory role in parenting their children - are
considered "lesser" men by others. Men who do
enjoy and find enormous joy and meaning in their parental role, rarely 'come
out' about it.
It's
not important or valuable to anyone. Probably because most men can’t identify
with the earth-fathers doting on their babies, anymore than they can identify
with a lactating or menstruating woman. Male mothers aren't considered any
more important than female ones - but at least they aren’t biological Misfits
and deserve respect for that. Of course, Big Daddy will “prove” through his
retroactive reconstructed scholarship that he was better at it all along,
once he ‘liberated’ all that messy Misfit female biology.
Menstruation
of course, has been rendered invisible and Erased, as it is the primary
Misfit piece of female biology. In the search to reconstruct female biology
in terms of androcentric male (ie human) norms, the menstrual cycle has
changed dramatically over the centuries. There is evidence to suggest
that modern Western women today have far more cycles, heavier and more
prolonged bleeding due to changes in diet, pregnancy/lactation patterns, as
well as altered muscle-to-fat ratios due to inadequate physical exercise.
There is little research of women’s menstrual health however, as being Misfit
and not entirely necessary to males, it can be safely ignored, or reconstructed with hormones or surgery
for convenience in order to Erase it.
After
thousands of years of enforced motherhood, where women didn't even have the
choice of which male sired their children - I can empathise with Shulamith
Firestone’s cry of ‘Pregnancy is barbaric!’ and some women's desire to
abandon motherhood and its attendant biology altogether. I get it. I do
understand and empathise with why many women would feel this way.
Pregnant and breast-feeding mothers are a reminder of the cruelty, the
physical and psychological rape heaped on our mothers for generations.
Biological motherhood is also a symbol of our greatest powerlessness, our
bodies are taken over by forces beyond our control – and the masculine
value-system of “power-over” is eagerly sought to replace the value-system of
“power-to”.
Perhaps
throwing out female biology and replacing it with masculine techno-porn
processes designed to imitate and conform to masculine biology, will liberate
women, as depicted in Marge Piercy’s popular utopian novel Woman on the
Edge of Time.. Nonetheless I was uncomfortable when a main
character justified this with ‘We all had to give up our power-bases’ like it
was some kind of direct one-to-one ‘equal’ exchange or trade-off of
equivalent commodities-– men sharing their power-bases is considered
equivalent to women sharing their mythical ‘power’ of biological
reproduction. Just like the ova is somehow equal to a sperm cell.
They are not equivalent, they are different, they are chalk and cheese.
When
I first read this, my initial response was “What powerbase have mothers ever
had?” and “How is it considered equal to male power-bases?” The first
thing patriarchy did was expropriate reproduction, and keep mothers under
very tight control. Mothers are still, and have always been, the most
vulnerable, the most controlled, and most powerless of all women. When
they do have any little power, it is DELEGATED authority,
they can only exercise what they are allowed to, or given permission to do.
In
the search for an androgynous solution to the gender wars, some women seem to
agree with patriarchy that female biology is the root of all evil and social
oppression. Get rid of the Misfit female biology and problem solved.
May
those Mad, Mad Women, those Misfit Mothers, Rest in Peace.
2.
Our
Bodies, Our Selves
“The phenomenon of
the drag queen dramatically demonstrates such boundary violation. Like whites
playing “black face”, he incorporates the oppressed role without being
incorporated in it.”
“…the feminization
of male-to-constructed-female transsexuals…. who consider themselves
“women”…..undergo operations which …give them artificial vaginas but no
clitoris…”
Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology – 1978
Many
of us who grew up in the liberal/humanist tradition often accept MTF
transsexuals as ‘women’ because of this complete mind-boggling insanity denying
the facts of biology, physics and chemistry. On one hand, many born women do
reconstruct themselves to ‘fit’ a male definition of femininity, much as MTF
transsexuals do. Biologically speaking, this version of male-defined
womanhood, or femininity either removes the clitoris, or reconstructs it as
an exact ‘equivalent’ version of the penis, in born-women. Breasts are denied
any biological function other than decorative, the vagina is an artifical
hole without complex musculature or nerve system, (ie forced to “fit” within male
pelvic structures) and the uterus and ovaries and female abdominal
musculature disappears altogether.
Interestingly,
gay male groups, often do not accept FTMs as male,
as one put it bluntly “As gay males, we are attracted to people with male
bodies and male biology”. Lesbian
women however, are not allowed to take this view of MTFs. Both are based on definitions of femininity
and masculinity, that have nothing to do with
femaleness. Both attempt to Erase the
female from existence. The FTM is
fleeing the female by removing all their uniqely female bits, and the MTF is
also Erasing the female, by replacing it with femininity which also excludes,
all the uniqely female or ‘different’ bits which biological males can’t do
anyway. Either way, the female bits
that can’t conform to a male biological “equivalent” standard are removed,
denied any importance or value, or any humanity. Only male biology matters. Only male
biology is ‘human’, so only male biology can be our ‘Destiny’. In other
words, both are insisting that the female has no right to existence.
From
any of the traditional viewpoints, be it essentialist, or biological
determinist, or complete social constructionist – I find it difficult to
accept bodies reconstructed to mimic female physicality can be included in
the category ‘Woman’ however ill-defined and problematic that category may be.
Even
from a purely social constructionist perspective, the socialisation of the
female begins in infancy, and is very much rooted in our physical bodies. They cannot be dis-connected without, to paraphrase Robert
Graves, ‘without a huge intellectual effort that destroys their humanity’.
Our bodies are our minds, there is no Mind/Body
split. Our Bodies, are indeed, Our
Selves
May
those Mad, Mad Women, those Misfit Female Bodies, Rest in Peace.
3. Sexuality and sexual identity
“The
mythology of the female orgasm could be considered the last ideological push
of the heterosexual establishment…….Nothing however, could disguise the fact
from women at least, that, where male sexual response tends to the
mechanical, female response continues to manifest as unpredictable and
variable…..A man who knows which buttons to press to get his partner to
come….is seeking to produce in his partner stereotyped orgasms rather like
his own….Only lesbians were able to handle the idea that female sexuality
might not be symmetrical with male sexuality, and that reconstructing it to
fit might result in a net loss of delight.” Germaine Greer, The
Whole Woman – 1999
On
one level, I have often been amused by sex researchers’ attempts to formally
describe female sexuality in terms of male sexuality. As a young woman
discussing sexual matters with others, I was often struck by our lack of
words with which to articulate our feelings and discoveries, whether lesbian
or heterosexual. Nothing that was used to describe male sexual
responses seemed to ‘fit’ what I, or other women, had experienced.
This
reconstruction of female sexuality to parallel that of males, including
describing lesbian sexuality in terms of some kind of “mirror-image” of male
homosexuality, does seem to parallel the reconstruction of all female
biology. In the search for ‘equality’ we seem to have settled for
‘equivalence’ of the kind that anything a man feels, a woman can too. But
anything a woman can feel, but a man can’t, just doesn’t exist.
In
her book Sex and Destiny, Greer outlines her perception of the
changing social concepts of sexuality, in that she
believes that the so-called ‘sexual revolution’ was co-opted by patriarchy,
and turned into the new religion of the West:
“Whether
women like it or not, current sexual mores are conditioning them to become
clitorally centred: their sexuality is being conditioned into the likeness
and the counterpart of masculine response……There is now no reason why a woman
can’t be more like a man. Female sexuality has been tailored, pared-down,
snipped to fit male inadequacy. One-dimensional man has been joined by his
one-dimensional woman.”
Male
sexuality is fixated upon genitals and penetration, with the ultimate goal
being an orgasm. Therefore - so must female sexuality in order to be ‘human’,
it must be defined in terms of male biological experience of sexuality. Women
and men are ‘equal’ right? Its religious nature underpins the consumer
economy, which is also fixated on penetration of markets. The explosion of
increasingly bizarre pornography, paraphilias, prostitution and sex-trade
trafficking, has, at least partly, resulted from its promotion as the new ‘Opiate
of the Masses’ - if you aint coming, you aint living, and true to its liberal
roots, this new religion also embraces homosexuality in its ritual
observances and homage to the Holy Orgasm. Also included are the ageing and
elderly, with Viagra for men, and HRT to help menopausal women retain
orgiastic potential.
The
Celibate is ex-communicated from this new Church.
The
basic premise of the liberal philosophy behind the sexual revolution of the
50s & 60s, (at its most simplistic), was that much of the authoritarian Apollonian
patriarchal state was based on repression of sexuality. Free the libido and
hey, presto – patriarchal structures would collapse, and the world would
magically start to make love not war.
Many
‘early feminists’ agreed with this stance. Denied women’s history, they were
no more aware of women’s activity in previous generations, than any
generation of women has ever been. For example, the Parisienne women of the
1890s, with their riotous bare arse, split legged displays designed to show
utter contempt for their oppressors – as in ‘Kiss my fat arse!’, or F-You. Similarly further back in time, in
scenes of women characters of Henry Fielding’s novels like Moll
Flanders. Like many young adults, the ‘early feminists’ of the 70s were
rebelling against their parental generation’s rigidity on sexual matters,
they were going to change the world, by reclaiming and celebrating their
sexuality. Feminist erotica was born. (Again, -*sigh*).
One
important feminist variation on this theme, came
from Juliet Mitchell in her book Woman’s
Estate – in which she argued that transformation of four primary
patriarchal institutions or “Estates’; production, reproduction, sexuality
and socialisation of children, must be made if women’s liberation was to be
achieved. However, she also maintained that all four “Estates” must be
transformed simultaneously, for transformation in only one, or even two – eg.
sexuality & production
– would only open the way to shift women’s oppression – for example, by
increasing women’s sexual objectification in the former, and increasing
women’s subjugation in ‘sweatshop’ slave industries in the latter. Mitchell’s
prophetic speculations of 1971, seems to have gone unheard.
Many
of these ‘early feminists’ adopting sexual liberation learned too late, but some
admitted their mistakes in the hopes that future generations of feminists
would not repeat their error. As Greer discussed her personally painful
experiences into developing feminist erotica in Soho in 1960s London, and as
she pointed out in response to Donita Sparks’s pulling a tampon out and flinging
it into the audience when L7 was on stage at the Reading Festival of 1992 - “ Sexuality might be the most
subversive thing, but female sexual display, from the artistically tasteful
to the most grotesque, is pure sexual conformism to the dominant male sexual
paradigm. What (we) so painfully learned from the pointless surrender of our
own privacy, was the true extent of our powerlessness, in that female sexual
display, whether hostile or seductive, is a weapon that can only inflict injury on the displayer…. (emphasis mine)…As long as men think of
women’s bodies as commodities offered for their consumption, there is no
liberation to be had either in taking clothes off, or keeping them covered,
in either offerring willingly, or submitting unwillingly”.
Ohh.. Little Sister, don’t you do
what your Big Sister done.
Nonetheless,
it would appear that every new generation of young women tries again to make
female sexuality ‘subversive’ in the name of ‘sexual liberation’. Here We Go
Again. From at least the 13th Century, from records feminist
scholars have been able to unearth – and in the 1990s, we end up with ‘Grrl
Power’, kinderwhores, Third-Wave and RiotGirls - those hard-drinking,
sexually aggressive Courtney Love wannabes, along with pseudo-feminist
arthouse films like Romance exploring the transcendental experience of
rape and sado-masochistic sex.
Greer
continues this theme in The Whole Woman:“Sex
at the end of the century is no longer a matter of intercourse. The sex of
the millennium is pornography.” The only sexuality which has been freed is
male sexuality, but almost as an afterthought, women are invited to
participate in the name of equality, as long as their sexual expression
parallels the dominant masculine paradigm. As might be expected with the
freeing of male sexuality, so has woman-hatred been freed and expanded:
“Some
men hate all women all of the time; all men hate some women some of the time.
I reckon that in the year 2000 more men hate more women, and more bitterly
than in 1970. Our culture is far more masculinist than it was 30 years ago.
Movies deal with male obsessions….the rock music that appeals to men is
deliberately, unbelievably and outrageously misogynist. While women were struggling to
live as responsible dignified adults, men have retreated into extravagantly
masculinist fantasies and behaviours. Every
day terrible revenges are enacted on women who have dared to
use their new privileges…..yet every day we are told there is nothing left to
fight for…..Feminism has served is purpose, and can now eff off.”
…along with those Mad, Mad Women Erasing their bodies, Erasing their
Selves.
4.
Biology is Destiny?
As
a natural scientist, this Nature vs Nurture, or the ‘Biology-is-Destiny’
debate has always annoyed me, simply because it is assumed that for a
characteristic to be biological, or ‘natural’, it therefore must be ‘fixed’
or immutable, unchangeable.
Biology
is NOT Destiny, for any species. This is fact, not speculation. Nature is
dependent on change and adaptation, not fixed in concrete or
hard-wiring. That is species-suicide,
or at least species-stagnation, even for plants. Adapt or die. Its an even more ridiculous concept when relating to homo sapiens sapiens – our species has
not lived as a purely biological organism for uncounted millennia. Layers
upon layers upon layers of civilisation, religion, tradition, education,
culture, language, abstract thought etc have almost wiped off the physical biological
map most of ‘fixed’ biological instincts and drives belonging to our
evolutionary ancestors. Our species has made both conscious and unconscious
decisions regarding biological processes ever since it crawled out of the
primeval slime. Along with many other
so-called ‘higher’ species, particularly of the mammalian kingdom.
For
example, the biological instinct or ‘urge’ to void bladder or bowel is a
simple biological fact of life for most animals. Many species do it
immediately when the urge arises, wherever or whenever they happen to be.
Humans learned to control or adapt this biological urge, we teach our young as
a matter of course and we even teach the creatures who share our homes. Most higher species
are ‘soft-wired’, not ‘hard-wired’, like right or left-handedness, a preference
that can adapt. Sexuality and reproduction are no different.
It
seems the social constructions that are the most ‘hard-wired’ and ‘fixed’, historically
have proven unable to be changed, or even challenged!.
From
most feminist discourse the issue of biological determinism, or even cultural
constructs of any form, shape or model of an innate female sense of identity
is discredited, or thrown as an insult (or politely termed a ‘critique’) onto
other brands of feminism. Notably towards radical feminists, who are often
criticised for being ‘essentialist’ or ‘cultural’ feminists, or at least
being naïve, to posit the possibility of a unique ‘female identity’, based on
any universalisms, including mechanisms of patriarchal oppression.
Tania
Lienert in her essay ‘On Who is Calling
radical feminists “Cultural Feminists” and other historical Sleights of hand’
– mentioned:
“Feminists,
especially radical feminists, have explicitly renounced biological
explanations for men’s and women’s roles, knowing that if it is accepted that
men are naturally violent and women are naturally passive, then
there is no point in working for change”. (emphasis mine)
The
same argument can be used against social constructionism, the automatic underlying
assumptions are biology is ‘fixed’ (which it isn’t, and never has been) – and
‘social constructs’ are changeable (which historically, have proved to be
enormously difficult to change). Since
the male mind has defined all the social constructs in his favour and for his
benefit, it will change only when he wants them to. They all seem to be same old, same old,
when it comes to the desperate need of the male to Erase the female from
human (ie male) consciousness, in Life, The Universe and Everything.
According
to postmodern theorists, there is no such category of ‘Woman’ anyway –
complete Erasure. Nothing left to argue about, no gender roles or
distinctions, there are no universalisms biological or social to worry about,
so there is still no fucking point in
working for change. Fait Accompli.
If there is no such thing as a category of ‘Woman’ why do we spend so much
energy in trashing the entire concept? Why spend so much energy
deconstructing gender constructs? What are we arguing about if there is no
such thing as ‘Woman’?
This
generalised antagonism and hostility towards even the possibility, of a
uniquely female identity, is possibly based in fear of upsetting either of the
two masculine power-systems – an understandable fear. Large numbers of women
do embrace this ideology, or theology, of ‘flight from the female’.
So
we identify primarily with race, class, gay male sexuality and other
divisions, which are also male-defined social constructions to distinguish
between groups of males.
Methinx
it has been the most brilliant tactic of Divide & Conquer ever
perpetrated – by convincing us all that we don’t really exist as a ‘class’ or
‘category’ at all, and never did, neither socially or biologically (when it
has always been both, not dissected, dis-membered or separate) – we have
absolutely no basis on which we can unite in solidarity, ( ‘ in numbers too big too ignore’ ) and
will never be a threat to the oppressive power-structures we all know are
there. Daly’s concept of ‘Erasure’ has
been completed, in all four of Mitchell’s ‘Estates’.
The post-modernist ideal of genderless humanity, removes, dismisses or
minimises all concepts of unique femaleness and replace it with masculinity,
albeit a far more socially acceptable one in some cases.
Whether Culture and/or Biology, is Destiny then, it would still appear to
be a very much a male Destiny.
Whether
She was a biological or a social construct, may that Mad, Mad Woman, the
indefinable, undefined, uncategorised, Mad, Mad Woman who went down without a
fight because it was in Her Nature and/or Social Construction to be
non-violent, non-aggressive, and Ultimately Non-Existent ;
-
May She Rest in Peace, a Peace She has never known on Man’s Earth, in Body or
Soul.
Copyright © 1999 FemSpeak
All rights reserved
Home
| About Us
| FemSpeak Forums
| Comments?
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>
|
