Welcome, Guest!
Editorial: Understanding Generation Q
Editorial cartoon by Rachel Skoza (click to enlarge)
Published: Friday, November 16, 2007 - 3:27pm
NEW YORK TIMES columnist Thomas Friedman recently commented about our generation in an article titled "Generation Q." The essence of his opinion is that unlike previous generations, we are no longer as politically active or radical as we need to be.
Instead, in our college years we try to incite change through grassroots organizations that are not overtly political, such as Habitat for Humanity, in our country and overseas. The extent of our "face to face" involvement with the government is simply e-mailing our representatives, signing online petitions, or asking people to join our humanitarian crusades on Facebook.
According to Friedman, this is the wrong approach to take.
"Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall," he wrote.
"When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them."
Thus, he dubbed us “Generation Q” — the quiet Americans. He concluded that we need to give America “a jolt of idealism, activism and outrage ... to light a fire under the country.”
We, the senior editors, feel a mixture of indignation and unfortunate agreement with Friedman’s comments. Despite the fact that we do concur, we would like to examine the reasons that cause our generation to be “quiet."
While there are students at Uni, and even on our editorial staff, who are extremely committed activists, we find that in general this population is small and the exception, not the rule. Even though the newly created Activism Calendar will soon be filled with protests, lectures, and organization meetings, it is likely that the Uni contingency at these events will be small.
For our generation, the world of tomorrow has become the world of today. Fast food, TV on demand, and above all the Internet have made us addicted to the now. Thus, we cannot wait for large-scale protests, which require copious amounts of time and effort, to induce change that will inevitably be limited. Therefore, we feel the need to go out and create change that we perceive to be immediate.
Things like building houses for Habitat for Humanity, teaching a kid to multiply through Teach for America, or vaccinating orphans in Somalia through Doctors Without Borders make us feel as though we are actually making a difference. In actuality, the help we provide is not anymore effective than protesting, but such actions satiate our hunger for instant gratification.
We have dismissed protests and instead we focus on acts of humanity as methods of inciting change. Ultimately, what we have done is decided to ignore the fundamental societal problems that exist and instead target the results of these problems. Which method is better is up for debate.
There are of course other reasons for our mistrust of the efficacy of radical protests. Our leaders on Capitol Hill have failed us miserably. Despite our generation's effort to speak out, they have lied to us, they have misled us, they have trapped us in trillions of dollars of debt, and they have completely ignored everything we have to say.
The wants of voters no longer translate into substantial change in Washington, D.C. Now the game is about appeasing lobbyists and large corporations; it’s not about representing the interests of voters. Our generation has lost faith in the government, and we no longer want to directly deal with it.
Finally, being upper-middle-class Americans on track toward college and professional careers, there is little that the government can do to threaten our existence. Without a draft in place we don’t fear being forced into military service the way the Vietnam War generation did. We have nothing to light this so-called “fire” under our butts.
Because the middle class is the one that has the time, resources, political awareness, and incentive to organize protests, the lack of motivation within this mass corresponds to the decline in political protests.
Though Friedman makes valid observations about the current generation, he dismisses essential factors which have contributed to these characteristics.
Adults shouldn't highlight all of the problems in our generation and conveniently forget why those problems are there in the first place — especially because most of the problems are caused by the policies and actions of their generation.
In essence, it is time for the older generations to stop pointing accusatory fingers at the younger generations and realize that we are no better or worse than they were as kids. (Do you see the irony?)
Comments
"You blame us? Well, we
"You blame us? Well, we blame you! See, we're mature!" I guess that's just the age-old slogan for any young generation.
The hypocrisy of the New York Times
The real irony?? It is so incredibly hypocritical of big media like the New York Times to publish editorials about the apathy and inactivity of our generation while they completely ignore or misreport every mass protest and political action that the youth of this country HAVE been doing. Us youth are definitely to blame, I am not trying to say its not our fault. But I have no respect for the way mass media has ignored and misrepresented the activism that is happening. To address us only as apathetic losers is to add insult to injury. For protest movements to work, it takes awareness and recognition by the media.
Thus it is not only our government that we have become disillusioned with, but also our media.
Great editorial- this is so concise and articulate and I very much agree.
here we go again
Nothing is so good at getting my little eyes rolling as a pompous and silly editorial from Thomas Friedman, who now blames quiet young people for ineffective response to the policies supported by loudmouths like---for instance---Thomas Friedman. The Iraq war he so fervently championed in 2003 has already added nearly half a trillion dollars to the national debt he now laments, with no end in sight: should Uni students have burned down a few buildings in protest, instead of discussing the war reasonably, the way they did 4 years ago? The global trade he so tirelessly advocates pours countless tons of carbon into the air, contributing to the environmental catastrophe he wants everyone to get worked up over. I don't follow: is it the fault of Generation Q that they can't shout loudly enough to stop him from being wrong?
If he wants to improve things, maybe he could apoligize and sit in silence for a few years, so that quiet people with real ideas could find their voices.
For those of you into Friendman trivia, be aware of the famous "Friedman Unit," a unit of time equal to six months, named in honor of his assertions, repeated more than a dozen times over a period exceeding two years, that "the next six months" will be decisive in the outcome of the war in Iraq. Many more Friedman Units will elapse before we see this promised decisive outcome.
Friedman Unit
Yes, I believe it was Duncan Black — better known as the blogger Atrios — who came up with the Friedman Unit, or as Atrios likes to put it, the "FU."
Great points about Friedman. How any clear-thinking person could consider him a foreign policy savant is beyond me. Some teachers even require their students to read his books — unironically. For the definitive takedown of Friedman, check out Matt Taibbi's review of "The World is Flat" here. Taibbi is the best of the young political journalists trying to make sense of where this country is going and why.
Compare Friedman to a real foreign policy expert such as Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan. Our own David Boyle, Class of 2006 and co-founder of the Online Gargoyle, is currently working as Cole's assistant on the latter's blog, Informed Comment.
Bangalore
Hey Mr. Porreca! I actually spent this summer working at Infosys, the company that inspired the book. Thomas Friedman is not just rhetorically challenged. As I learned at Infosys, he is also a terrible economist.
Yes, the internet does make labor arbitrage easier. I don't need him to tell me that! But Friedman does not understand the consequences of at all. First, the US should not be trying to outcompete India (or China) to produce as many engineers as possible. (for a good discussion of this economic fallacy, see Krugman's classic book 'Pop Economics'). The whole idea of countries competing the way that Friedman does is totally wrong: the US should train fewer engineers, not more, because there is no hope of the US producing as much cheap software as India does: India clearly has a comparative advantage in software services.
Second, although there are many Indians, class divisions in India mean that the number of Indians who are potential software engineers is actually very small. I would suspect that the same thing is true in China. The pool of potential high-skilled workers in India is relative to the size of the company.
Third, Infosys has been expanding primarily in China, Eastern Europe (a lot of highly skilled people there!), Mexico (wages are low, and it offers a good foothold to L. America), and another country with large groups of unemployed, highly-educated, English-speaking workers: the US! It's not that surprising, if you think about it. Indian companies need to hedge against the rising rupee (and they're benefiting from the weak dollar). US Geographies like Idaho have people who speak great English, have completed high school and often require only a little specialized training to be able to be able to do good financial data entry. It is entirely possible - in theory - for increased trade to reduce the purchasing power of a country (again, see Krugman for a full discussion). That's not the case for the US, though: outsourcing has increased the number of jobs for Americans! (HBS, 2007) Look at IBM: they are a much stronger company than Infosys, far more experienced, and they have taken advantage of outsourcing some tasks to India and are able to employ more Americans in fields Americans are good at, often ones that require soft skills that are not as well taught in India (eg marketing).
Infosys is a good company, and their campus is gorgeous. They have good management who are eager show off to an overenthusiastic American journalist: their official slogan is now "Win in a Flat World". But I wish Friedman actually spent a little bit of time looking at the numbers provided by Economists - among them, his colleague at the Times Paul Krugman. If he had done that, his book would have been far drier, but far more accurate.
Replies
I remember reading Friedman's column and feeling that he had somewhat missed the point. Ray makes good observations about Friedman's own involvement in our current mess, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm seeing here is a dangerous trend towards idealism, from people like Friedman who feel that the Youth of Today need to make louder noises, from the Bush administration, which is so sure of its own role in making everyone in the world a citizen of a freedom-loving democracy... one that is also open to trading with America, of course, and even from the Gargoyle Senior Editors (unfortunately unnamed here), who think an activism calender filled with well-attended events is a great thing to strive for.
The main problem that all these people have is a trust in idealistic, one-sided worldviews. Even though I'm liberal in my political affiliations, I am still often disturbed by the way some Uni students are willing to accept any liberal viewpoint without questioning it. I find it almost as disturbing as the way the country accepted the weak rationalizations for the Iraq war. More so, in some ways, as I pride myself on having come to my conclusions through rational thought, and it's not pleasant to see them swallowed so unquestioningly. Many people here seem ready to blame racism for just about anything, or never consider the fact that a large corporation's advertising campaign might not be soul-subverting evil. But that's not really what I'm talking about either; what I'm trying to do here is establish that I have little love for any of the viewpoints in question here, and am ready to introduce my own.
To summarize: Friedman wants more idealistic activism from our generation, Bush wants an idealistic acceptance of worldwide democracy and a War on Terror that can be won, and the Gargoyle editors want more idealistic activism from the Uni population, and also for the older generation to stop blaming us for not fixing what they screwed up in the first place. This last point I totally agree with, but the way in which everyone wants people to go about fixing things is not the best one.
Idealism never proves very useful in the end; idealistic philosophies ignore anything contrary to them and are not good for compromising on. Look at Communism. Now there was a good idea. Yet supporters of Communism failed to compromise on any issue. Reading Lenin's writings, I was struck by the vehemence with which he dismissed liberals and moderate socialists. To him, they were as bad as the extreme capitalists. If the communists had been willing to compromise, perhaps they would have survived without falling prey to Stalin's dictatorial ambitions. Either way, their idealism hurt them. Or how about bringing democracy to Iraq? Another great idea: overthrow the undoubtedly cruel and dictatorial Hussain, bring democracy, peace, and stability to the region, and secure some cheap oil to boot! That noble cause was unattainable, and many administration higherups knew it,but their faith in the propensity of the Iraqi people to rise up in a glorious American-style revolution overrode wiser voices, and we went to war with disastrous results. In all these cases, idealism in the end compromised the hopes of the idealists who were unwilling to compromise their stance.
Idealism prevents two parties from working towards compromises and solutions because each is so entrenched in their respective positions they cannot ever see working together. Idealism is therefore dangerous, unproductive, and to be avoided. Encouraging idealistic actions will not solve any of the complex problems of the modern world, and indeed will only create new ones or exacerbate old ones.
My political philosophy holds that the the days of marches and protests are over. Such tactics worked forty years ago, but today governments are smarter. A close reading of all that was said by the administration about the war during the leadup and the occupation itself shows that they were doing their utmost to minimize the impact of protest on the war effort. Waving signs at the problem will not fix it. What we need to do is continually educate ourselves about the current state of affairs, and instead of getting up in arms about what we see is wrong and trying to overthrow the whole system, we should band together to consider each issue and work towards a compromise. Things like carefully deciding who to vote for are more important than protesting the war. Electing leaders who will do what we want is the best way to get what we want done. In the end, we must work for small, slow, steady steps along the road to a better society. More activism from the young won't change that fact, nor will less blaming from the old, or more misguided crusades from the administration, or more speakers at Uni. They are all shouting the same thing, and it's time for everyone to stop listening to everything they say and start thinking realistically for themselves.
I didn't originally intend to write such and essay, but please do me the courtesy of reading the whole thing if you want to respond. I'm not sure if we can edit posts; if we can, I might come back through here and clean this up at some point. The wording and structure is subject to change, but I do stand by my main point that idealism is useless and destructive, so attack that all you want.
-Jacob Druker
Editors
The Gargoyle senior editors are named in the Gargoyle staff list:
http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/gargoyle/staff
Jacob, thank you for making
Jacob, thank you for making some very good points. The only problem I have with your argument is your analysis of Leninism. Specifically, that compromise would work. Lenin's interpretation of communism hinged its very existence on the destruction of social classes, the construction of the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. The liberals and moderate socialists you mention would be highly unlikely to want such a change of social order, and thus they would be about as suitable as allies as the extreme capitalists.
Lenin
I had the occasion to read some of Lenin's works because I was writing a paper about him. He states at one point in the 1912 article Two Utopias that he has no use for anyone who does not think that Communism will come about through a bloody revolution. The interesting thing is that he knows that he can't destroy social classes right off the bat; in Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat he admits that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not true communism, but he is willing to compromise on that rather basic issue more readily than the idea of a bloody worker's revolution.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't supposed to be a permanent compromise, but rather a *necessary step* in the Marxian progression of society towards communism.
My bad.
My bad. My communist phase was back in sophomore year, so I'm a little rusty.
Oh, that was directed more
Oh, that was directed more at Jacob than at you, actually.
Re: Dictatorship of the Proleteriat
I know that-- but Lenin saw it as necessary, whereas I see it as optional. He could have brought the moderates into the party and orchestrated a peaceful movement towards communism, slowly getting people accustomed to the idea. That's how a great many steps were made in other movements, especially on the women's rights front. No bloody revolution there, yet eventually women were able to get equal rights. Lenin was a skilled enough leader to do such a thing, but he was too attached to the idea of a bloody revolution, and to certain dictates of Marxist doctrine, such as when a fake capitalist system was created to take care of that stage.
Jacob
First of all, Jacob you have a well throught out arguement, but sometimes its better to listen than to speak.
Secondly, its a little ridiculous that us high schoolers with nothing much more than self taught tidbits of philosophy and social thought can tell each other whos more right (throwing around fancy titles doesnt make you sound cool). This is a problem all to common at uni, and i think its safe to assume that sometimes "gifted" students dont know everything.
Thirdly, we can be safe to assume Lenins thought processes were a bit more complex that he was an idealist or he wasnt. Anyone can be called an idealist, idealism is simply a declaration of a higher purpose or aspiration, and if we look closely, I'd say we all have those characteristics.
Fourthly, the power of protest has never and will never lie in the ability to wave signs, shout, or be self righteous. Though a lot of that stuff happened 30 and 40 years ago, protest is important because of its ability to mold public opinion and change culture. In that sense, all media and human interaction has that power, so again our idealism argument is defunct.
Also, be careful about throwing race into this matter, if you go that direction, there are so many arguments you'd just be asking for it.
Finally, I would urge you should think a little more critically about the idea that only small scale electoral change can be effective. Just because we live in a society with limited possibilities for change doesnt mean those options dont exist. For example, Mike Gravel (who has been totally dismissed by mass media as an angry old man) has proposed a whole new kind of populist approach to lawmaking: he is taking a handful of power away from political candidates and coorporate lobbyists who manipulate the electoral process and giving it back to the people to determine their own futures. In our current system, I would definitely say this is a radical move, but if it were implimented, it would by all means be effective.
Anyway, its cool that we can have an open respectful forum for discussion like this.
I think you misunderstood us...
Jacob,
While your extensive and very well thought out comment is much appreciated I think that just as you feel "[Friedman] somewhat missed the point" you too have "somewhat" missed the point of our editorial.
I as a Gargoyle senior editor in no way "think an activism calender filled with well-attended events is a great thing to strive for." In fact, the point of our editorial, in my opinion, was actually to dissuade people from believing that without being radically involved in activism our generation is completely useless. We don't need to strive for an activism calender filled with well-attended events, which is in essence what Friedman is saying. In naming us the "quiet" generation, Friedman implied that we need to be louder and more bold in the political arena and that the only way to do this is by picketing and yelling at our leaders.
When I helped write the editorial what I intended to get across two ideas: the first being that our generation is still excellent even though we aren't as radically involved as our predecessors and the second being an explication of why our generation is as it is. Given your impression of our editorial it is clear these ideas did not come across as lucidly as we intended them to.
Unfortunately, the inability of language to act as a true medium for communication often causes misunderstandings and I think that is what has occured here.
re: Marika
You post has several different parts, so I broke it up into sections and am replying to each individually.
First of all, Jacob you have a well throught out arguement, but sometimes its better to listen than to speak.
Thank you for liking my argument... but what does "it is better to listen than to speak" supposed to mean, exactly? I presume this comments section is here for a reason...
Secondly, its a little ridiculous that us high schoolers with nothing much more than self taught tidbits of philosophy and social thought can tell each other whos more right
Whether I've taken any political philosophy classes or not is irrelevant. If you have a specific rebuttal to anything I've said with regards to the harm that idealistic thinking does to making real progress, go ahead and post it, but don't tell me I'm not qualified to make my arguments. Ideas are equally valid no matter who thinks of them. If you can produce a philosopher or social theorist who disagrees with what I have said and is willing to provide evidence and arguments against it, I would gladly listen and even change my mind if I thought their arguments made more sense than my own. (After all, I'd be a hypocrite if I wasn't willing to compromise my own position after arguing for compromise.) The minute I see arguments for any other viewpoint that make more sense than the arguments for my current view point, I'll change my mind.
(throwing around fancy titles doesnt make you sound cool).
Let's try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum here. I'm only interested in responses to my arguments, not accusations that I'm trying to "look cool" by "throwing around fancy titles."
This is a problem all to common at uni, and i think its safe to assume that sometimes "gifted" students dont know everything.
That is indeed a safe assumption to make, but not entirely germane, as I never claimed to know everything. Once again, respond to my arguments, not to what you suspect my conceit is.
Thirdly, we can be safe to assume Lenins thought processes were a bit more complex that he was an idealist or he wasnt. Anyone can be called an idealist, idealism is simply a declaration of a higher purpose or aspiration, and if we look closely, I'd say we all have those characteristics.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original example. I did not intend to say that Lenin was only idealistic in everything he did, but that he was idealistic some of the time. The important point is that those times and/or issues he was extremely idealistic about were marked by a harmful lack of openness to compromise. I'm not saying that Lenin was stupid because he was an idealist and nothing more, but rather that his occasional idealism harmed his goals. As to the second point in your paragraph, yes I agree that everyone is an idealist to some degree. Whether one is idealistic towards a higher purpose is a matter of perspective only. (e.g. I'd hardly say that the anti-gay idealists who want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage have a "high" purpose, though I'm sure they consider it "high.") What I'm saying is that such idealism should be suppressed for the purpose of finding common ground and working towards a compromise, not encouraged, as that only leads to more pointless conflict.
Fourthly, the power of protest has never and will never lie in the ability to wave signs, shout, or be self righteous. Though a lot of that stuff happened 30 and 40 years ago, protest is important because of its ability to mold public opinion and change culture. In that sense, all media and human interaction has that power, so again our idealism argument is defunct.
I agree with the facts you draw on, but not your conclusion. I do think that all media has the power to shape human culture and thinking, but I do not see how that renders my argument defunct. I am never convinced by anything that the far-right commentators on Fox News have to say, despite the fact that they are clearly very idealistic. I'm much more convinced by people who are willing to compromise and find common ground with me than inform me that I am going to hell for not agreeing with them. "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW NOW NOW" is much less convincing than "The eventual goal of bringing all the troops home can be met with phased pullouts and slowly scaling back our involvement."
Also, be careful about throwing race into this matter, if you go that direction, there are so many arguments you'd just be asking for it.
It's a topic I'd like to debate, but you are right in saying that this is not the place.
Finally, I would urge you should think a little more critically about the idea that only small scale electoral change can be effective. Just because we live in a society with limited possibilities for change doesnt mean those options dont exist. For example, Mike Gravel (who has been totally dismissed by mass media as an angry old man) has proposed a whole new kind of populist approach to lawmaking: he is taking a handful of power away from political candidates and coorporate lobbyists who manipulate the electoral process and giving it back to the people to determine their own futures. In our current system, I would definitely say this is a radical move, but if it were implimented, it would by all means be effective.
I think that's a fantastic idea, but it's not going to happen. According to usaelectionpolls.com, Mike Gravel has between 1% and 6% support in every category. It's true he has been largely dismissed, and you don't see the mainstream candidates talking about anything like what he is. I'm fine with it being that way. I don't want Clinton or Obama to start going too far left and drive away moderates. That's not how to win an election or effect real change, and I'd be much angrier about another Republican in office than a moderate Democrat, as I'm sure you would be too. I'm sure his ideas would be effective if they were implemented, "if" being the operative term. But nothing will ever get done if all we have are extremists on both sides fighting a tug-of-war game. I just recalled something we learned in Mr. Sutton's US History class: The Liberty party pushed hard for a third party candidate in the 1844 election, and in doing so took votes away from Henry Clay, a moderate anti-slavery candidate, and essentially gave the election to James K. Polk. If only they had been willing to compromise...
Anyway, its cool that we can have an open respectful forum for discussion like this.
I was pleased that I got such a response. To have thrown that long post out there to no reaction would have been depressing. I'm glad to see Uni students are interested in debate.
The "lesser evil" argument
The "lesser evil" argument when it comes to voting for candidates is a dangerous one to go by. Obama and Hillary are considered leftist in this country. That is something to be extremely alarmed about. To hear people say that we should support them to avoid getting Giuliani or another republican makes me shudder, because Obama and Hilary are just as bad. I guess what I disagree with Jacob about is whether or not we should attack the system.
This is something I spend a lot of time thinking about because I definitely work in the anti-war movement with people that are all over the political spectrum. The Campus Anti-war Network has socialists in it, anarchists, leftists, democrats, even "out of iraq into darfur" people who are not even against American imperialism. I agree that it is incredibly important to be able to work with people you disagree with for certain causes, in this case ending the war. But you need to be weary of compromising too much in America's current political state. Cuz we have a very very narrow space for accepted political ideologies in America right now, all of it shifted drastically to the right- when people start calling Mike Gravell an extremist like you did that is proof that we have a very skewed political scale, the political rhetoric is just so quick to write off any socialist-leaning policies as extremist while we accomodate and justify the authoritarian turns the current government is taking. What was once considered conservative rightwing becomes moderate.
Jacob, you brought up the example of the feminist movement which I found very amusing. See, many people would say that the reason women are still oppressed today is precisely because they did not get more radical, or did but did not succeed in overthrowing the patriarchy. It is the same with the civil rights movement: today, black people are one of the most oppressed groups in this country and there is more segregation and surely far more black people in jail than after Brown v. Board. in the 60s. We are going backwards on that front as well and it is exactly because the system of white control of the country did not change. When the civil rights movement did get radical the leaders were killed or put in jail and many of those activists are still in jail today. Should they really have tried to compromise with a government that spied on and murdered them?? Was it really good that the movement compromised? Cuz it seems to me that we've ended up only slightly better off as a society, and in ways it is worse because the fire for protest has been extinguished.
The anti-war movement will die a quick pathetic death if it were to focus only on political campaigning for presidential candidates. The Iraq War is not some random mistake of the Bush administration. An imperialist country like ours necessitates wars like this one. As you get toward the end of the year you will learn in your history class how the U.S. has been invading countries for their resources and political control since the Monroe doctrine. Thus, if we don’t attack the system of corporate global capitalism and the U.S.'s role in it, we will only face more and more wars like this. It is simply incorrect to view issues such as the Iraq War as isolated events.
One must meet people where they are at and work with people and groups with differing beliefs to have a successful mass protest movement. This does, to an extent, require a compromise in the sense that the groups participating in the movement must focus only on one issue but we can do this while at the same time we keep in mind that the individual issue has roots that must be changed fundamentally. And at the end of one struggle, the people involved must keep working to change the larger system that brought about the initial struggle.
love, Shara
Soon...
This is a long post, and I'll want to write a long reply. I've got lots of various papers and stuff coming up, but I will get a response done at some point soon. Thanks for the reply. It was articulate and raised some interesting points. I'll post a full response soon.
its amazing how much we have
its amazing how much we have to say about this topic. maybe people should organize, idk, a assembly, or one time club that discusses these issues. Maybe the findings could even be opublished in the paper! but seriously, iif you want to know about the women's movement, ask any random subbie. they just had a hard test in a series of hard tests about it. THe women's movement was organized afterwards in what was called waves, a period of intense political action. there were many leader. maybe you guys should bring that up too, in your forum....this is something thats realyl jumping randomly but here's a link that just might work to a website... http://www.nwhm.org/RightsforWomen/tableofcontents.html
Post new comment