https://de.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=RadgeekWikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]2025-04-15T14:31:12ZBenutzerbeiträgeMediaWiki 1.44.0-wmf.24https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Hall&diff=133902664Prince Hall2006-03-08T01:01:56Z<p>Radgeek: /* External links */ +cat</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Prince Hall''' (c. [[1735]]-[[December 4]], [[1807]]) is considered the founder of "black [[Freemasonry]]" in the [[United States]], known today as [[Prince Hall Freemasonry]].<br />
<br />
No record of his birth has yet been found, although he is variously stated to have been born in [[Africa]] or [[Barbados]] and to have been brought to North America as a [[History of slavery in the United States|slave]]. However, he may well have been born in Massachusetts, since black people at the time were commonly referred to as Africans no matter where they came from. Documents in [[Massachusetts]] showing that slaveowner William Hall freed a man named Prince Hall on [[April 9]], [[1765]] cannot be conclusively linked to any one individual, as several other men named Prince Hall were living in [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]] at that time. It is also unknown whether he was free-born or a [[freedman]]. Narrative stories of Prince Hall's birth and youth are unsubstantiated and appear to have been invented by their authors (particularly William H. Grimshaw in [[1903]]).<br />
<br />
Prince Hall was a property owner and a registered voter in Boston. He worked as an [[abolitionism|abolitionist]] and civil rights activist, fought for laws to protect free blacks in Massachusetts from kidnapping by slave traders, campaigned for schools for black children, and operated a school in his own home.<br />
<br />
On [[March 6]], [[1775]], Prince Hall and fourteen other black men were initiated, passed and raised in Military Lodge No. 441, an integrated Lodge attached to the British Army and then stationed in Boston. Prince Hall apparently served in the [[Continental milita]] during the [[American Revolutionary War]], and may have fought at the [[Battle of Bunker Hill]]. (Once again, his service record is unclear because several men of the name appear in the Massachusetts militia records.)<br />
<br />
When the British Army left Boston in [[1776]], the black Masons were granted a dispensation for limited operations as ''African Lodge No. 1''. They were entitled to meet as a Lodge, to take part in the Masonic procession on St. John's Day, and to bury their dead with Masonic rites, but not to confer degrees or perform other Masonic functions. Excluded by the Provincial [[Grand Lodge]] of Massachusetts, they were granted a charter by the Premier Grand Lodge of England in [[1784]] as African Lodge No. 459 (but, due to communications problems, did not receive the actual charter until [[1787]]). <br />
<br />
Shortly thereafter that, black Masons elsewhere in the U.S. began contacting Prince Hall with requests to establish affiliated Lodges in their own cities. Consistent with European Masonic practice at that time, African Lodge granted their requests and served as Mother Lodge to new black Lodges in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|Philadelphia]], [[Providence, Rhode Island|Providence]] and [[New York City|New York]].<br />
<br />
A problem quickly arose for black men wishing to become Masons in the newly formed United States: the members of a Lodge must agree unanimously in an anonymous vote to accept a petitioner to receive the degrees. As a consequence of the unanimity requirement, if just one member of a lodge did not want black men in his Lodge, his vote was enough to cause the petitioner's rejection. Thus, although exceptions did exist, Masonic Lodges and Grand Lodges in the United States generally excluded African-Americans. And since the vote is conducted anonymously, this created a second problem: since no one knew who had voted against the applicant, it was impossible to identify a member as pursuing a policy of racism. This allowed even a tiny number of prejudiced members to effectively deny membership to black petitioners, and in some cases even exclude black men who had legitimately been made Masons in integrated jurisdictions. Thus there arose an apparently unintentional system of racial segregation in American Masonry which remained in place until the [[1960s]] and which persists in some jurisdictions even to this day.<br />
<br />
In [[1791]], black Freemasons met in Boston and formed the ''African Grand Lodge of North America''. Prince Hall was unanimously elected its Grand Master and served until his death in [[1807]]. (The claim that he was appointed Provincial Grand Master for North America in [[1791]] appears to have been fabricated.) The African Grand Lodge was later renamed the ''Prince Hall Grand Lodge'' in his honor. In [[1827]] the African Grand Lodge declared its independence from the United Grand Lodge of England, as the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts had done 45 years earlier. It also stated its independence from all of the white Grand Lodges in the United States.<br />
<br />
Today, predominantly black Prince Hall Grand Lodges exist in the United States, [[Canada]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Liberia]], governing Prince Hall Lodges throughout the world. After nearly two centuries of controversy, the Grand Lodge of England was ask to decide the matter of Prince Hall Masonic legitimacy. After studying the records, the Grand Lodge of England decided that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was indeed entitled to Masonic recognition. As a result, most (though not all) "mainstream" (i.e. predominantly white) Grand Lodges in the United States and elsewhere have extended full fraternal recognition to their Prince Hall counterparts.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Draffen of Newington, George (May 13, 1976).&nbsp; ''Prince Hall Freemasonry''.&nbsp; Scotland: The Phylaxis Society.&nbsp; Reprinted at [http://www.freemasonry.org/phylaxis/prince_hall.htm Phylaxis Society: Prince Hall Freemasonry] (retrieved December 29, 2004).<br />
<br />
* Edward, Bruce John (June 5, 1921).&nbsp; Prince Hall, the Pioneer of Negro Masonry.&nbsp; ''Proofs of the Legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry''.&nbsp; New York. <br />
<br />
* Grimshaw, William H., Past Grand Master, 1907 of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington, District of Columbia (1903).&nbsp; ''Official History of Free Masonry Among the Coloured People in North America''.&nbsp; '''Note: significant claims in this book have been discredited by later research.'''<br />
<br />
* Haunch, T.O.&nbsp; (Commentary on the illegitimacy of alleged Provincial Grand Master patent.)&nbsp; [http://www.freemasonry.org/phylaxis/reviews.htm Phylaxis Society: Reviews of Prince Hall Freemasonry] (retrieved December 29, 2004).<br />
<br />
* Moniot, Joseph E.&nbsp; Prince Hall Lodges History&mdash;Legitimacy&mdash;Quest for recognition.&nbsp; ''Proceedings'', Vol. VI, No. 5, Walter F. Meier Lodge of Research No. 281, Grand Lodge of Washington.<br />
<br />
* Walkes, Jr., Joseph A (1979).&nbsp; ''Black Square and Compass&mdash;200 years of Prince Hall Freemasonry'', p. 8.&nbsp; Richmond, Virginia: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Co.<br />
<br />
* Wesley, Dr. Charles H (1977).&nbsp; ''Prince Hall: Life and Legacy''.&nbsp; Washingon, DC: The United Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, Prince Hall Affiliation and the Afro-American Historical and Cultural Museum.&nbsp; Reprinted in ''Prince Hall Masonic Directory, 4th Edition'' (1992).&nbsp; Conference of Grand Masters, Prince Hall Masons.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* [http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/hall_p/hall_p.html Biography of Prince Hall, Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon]<br />
* [http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/indiabasin/58/phhistory.htm Prince Hall History, Widow's Son Lodge No. 4 PHA, North Carolina]<br />
* [http://www.freemasonry.org/phylaxis/prince_hall.htm Prince Hall Freemasonry, Phylaxis Society]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Freemasonry]]<br />
[[Category:Freemasons|Hall, Prince ]]<br />
[[Category:Slaves|Hall, Prince]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Taylor_of_Caroline&diff=136765793John Taylor of Caroline2006-03-07T04:11:43Z<p>Radgeek: +Taylor on slavery</p>
<hr />
<div>{{otherpersons|John Taylor}} [[Image:John Taylor of Caroline.jpg|framed|right|John Taylor of Caroline]]<br />
'''John Taylor''' ([[December 19]], [[1753]]-[[August 21]], [[1824]]) of [[Caroline County, Virginia]] was a politician and writer. He served in the [[Virginia House of Delegates]] (1779–81, 1783–85, 1796–1800) and in the [[United States Senate]] (1792–94, 1803, 1822–24). He was the author of several books on politics and agriculture. He was a [[Jeffersonian democracy|Jeffersonian Democrat]] and his works provided inspiration to the later [[state's rights]] and [[libertarian]] movements.<br />
<br />
His father died when he was a small child and he was raised by his uncle [[Edmund Pendleton]], a leading [[Virginia]] politician. He attended a school sponsored by his uncle with fellow students: [[James Madison]] (a distant cousin), and [[George Rogers Clark]]. Taylor attended the [[College of William and Mary]] and then studied law under his uncle. He served in the [[American Revolutionary War]], rising to the rank of colonel, and serving under [[Patrick Henry]] and General [[William Woodford]], and leading a regiment under the [[Marquis de Lafayette]].<br />
<br />
After the war Taylor lived as a lawyer, slave-holding farmer and part-time politician, serving several partial U.S. Senate terms. He was a leader of the [[Quids]], opposing the election of Madison as President and supporting [[James Monroe]]. <br />
<br />
Taylor wrote in defense of slavery and called for the deportation of free [[African Americans]]. He criticized [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s ambivalence towards slavery in ''[[Notes on the State of Virginia]]''. Taylor agreed with Jefferson that the institution was an evil, but argued that it was "incapable of removal, and only within reach of palliation," and took issue with Jefferson's repeated references to the specific cruelties of slavery, arguing that "slaves are docile, useful and happy, if they are well managed," and that "the individual is restrained by his property in the slave, and susceptible of humanity . . . . Religion assails him both with her blandishments and terrours. It indissolubly binds his, and his slaves happiness or misery together." His approach, defending the preservation of slavery as it was and claiming that proper management could benefit the slave as well as the mater, anticipated the more emphatic defenses of slavery as a "positive good" by later writers such as [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Edmund Ruffin]], and [[George Fitzhugh]] .<br />
<br />
Taylor's estate, Hazelwood, is on the [[National Register of Historic Places]].<br />
<br />
<br clear=all><br />
==Writings of John Taylor of Caroline==<br />
*''Arator'' (one of the first books on the problems of American agriculture and a defense of slavery)<br />
*''New Views of the Constitution of the United States'' <br />
*''Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated'' <br />
*''A Defence of the Measures of the Administration of Thomas Jefferson'', attributed to "Curtius".<br />
*''An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States''<br />
*''Tyranny Unmasked'' <br />
<br />
From ''Reprints of Legal Classics'' [http://www.lawbookexchange.com/reprints02/books/Sears.html (1)]<br />
: "Little-known today, Taylor's work is of great significance in the political and intellectual history of the South and is essential for understanding the constitutional theories that Southerners asserted to justify [[secession]] in [[1861]]. Taylor fought in the Continental army during the American Revolution and served briefly in the [[Virginia]] [[House of Delegates]] and as a U.S. Senator. It was as a writer on constitutional, political, and agricultural questions, however, that Taylor gained prominence. He joined with [[Thomas Jefferson]] and other [[agrarian]] advocates of [[states' rights]] and a strict [[construction]] of the [[Constitution]] in the political battles of the [[1790s]]. His first published writings argued against [[Secretary of the Treasury]] [[Alexander Hamilton]]'s financial program. ''Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated'' was Taylor's response to a series of post-[[War of 1812]] developments including [[John Marshall]]'s [[Supreme Court]] decision in [[McCulloch v. Maryland]], the widespread issuance of [[paper money]] by banks, proposals for a [[protective tariff]], and the attempt to bar [[slavery]] from [[Missouri]]. Along with many other Southerners, Taylor feared that these and other measures following in the train of Hamilton's financial system, were undermining the foundations of American [[republicanism]]. He saw them as the attempt of an "artificial capitalist sect" to corrupt the virtue of the American people and upset the proper constitutional balance between state and federal authority in favor of a centralized national government. Taylor wrote, "If the means to which the government of the union may resort for executing the power confided to it, are unlimited, it may easily select such as will impair or destroy the powers confided to the state governments." Jefferson, who noted that "Col. Taylor and myself have rarely, if ever, differed in any political principle of importance," considered ''Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated'' "the most logical retraction of our governments to the original and true principles of the Constitution creating them, which has appeared since the adoption of the instrument." Later Southern thinkers, notably [[John C. Calhoun]], were clearly indebted to Taylor."<br />
:- Sabin, ''A Dictionary of Books Relating to America'' 94486. <br />
:- Cohen, ''Bibliography of Early American Law'' 6333.(21527)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* Christopher M. Curtis, [http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-4744152149731401/unrestricted/CHP1.PDF Chapter I], ''Can These be the Sons of their Fathers? The Defense of Slavery in Virginia, 1831-1832''. <br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.constitution.org/jt/jtnvc.htm Taylor, John. (1823). "New Views of the Constitution of the United States]<br />
*[http://www.constitution.org/jt/tyr_un.htm Taylor, John. (1821). "Tyranny Unmasked"]<br />
*[http://www.constitution.org/jt/cccv.htm Taylor, John. (1820). "Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated"]<br />
<br />
[[Category:1753 births|Taylor of Caroline, John]]<br />
[[Category:1824 deaths|Taylor of Caroline, John]]<br />
[[Category:Slaveholders|Taylor, John]]<br />
[[Category:United States Senators from Virginia|Taylor of Caroline, John]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139908Lavender Menace2006-02-17T19:29:32Z<p>Radgeek: /* Effects */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{gay rights}}<br />
<br />
The '''Lavender Menace''' was an informal group of [[lesbian]] [[radical feminism|radical feminists]] formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the [[feminism|feminist movement]] at the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]]. Members included [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], [[Ellen Shumsky]], and [[Michaela Griffo]], and were mostly members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
==Origins==<br />
The phrase "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan, and some other straight feminists as well, worried that the association would hamstring feminists' ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement. Under her direction, NOW attempted to distance itself from lesbian causes &#8212; up to omitting the New York chapter of the [[Daughters of Bilitis]] from the list of sponsors of the [[First Congress to Unite Women]] in [[November 1969]]. Friedan's remarks and the decision to drop DOB from the sponsor list led lesbian feminist [[Rita Mae Brown]] to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in [[February 1970]] (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). On [[March 15]], [[1970]], straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender ''herring'', perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a ''[[New York Times Magazine]]'' article.<br />
<br />
Brownmiller later said that when she wrote the article, she had intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but some lesbian feminists (especially [[Michaela Griffo]]) took her remarks as "a scathing put-down" (Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" (Jay 140)&#8212;because they felt that the quip dismissed lesbians as an insignificant part of the movement, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues.<br />
<br />
==Second Congress to Unite Women==<br />
[[Rita Mae Brown]] suggested to her [[consciousness-raising]] group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]], which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a "zap" for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "[[The Woman-Identified Woman]]" and made t-shirts, dyed purple and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). [[Karla Jay]], one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:<br />
<br />
: Finally, we were ready. The Second Congress to Unite Women got under way on May 1 at 7:00 PM at Intermediate School 70 on West Seventeenth Street in Manhattan. About three hundred women filed into the school auditorium. Just as the first speaker came to the microphone, [[Jesse Falstein]], a GLF member, and Michaela [Griffo] switched off the lights and pulled the plug on the mike. (They had cased the place the previous day, and knew exactly where the switches were and how to work them.) I was planted in the middle of the audience, and I could hear my coconspirators running down both aisles. Some were laughing, while others were emitting [[rebel yell]]s. When Michaela and Jesse flipped the lights back on, both aisles were lined with seventeen lesbians wearing their Lavender Menace T-shirts and holding the placards we had made. Some invited the audience to join them. I stood up and yelled, "Yes, yes, sisters! I'm tired of being in the closet because of the women's movement." Much to the horror of the audience, I unbuttoned the long-sleeved red blouse I was wearing and ripped it off. Underneath, I was wearing a Lavender Menace T-shirt. There were hoots of laughter as I joined the others in the aisles. Then Rita [Mae Brown] yelled to members of the audience, "Who wants to join us?"<br />
<br />
:"I do, I do," several replied.<br />
<br />
: Then Rita also pulled off her Lavender Menace T-shirt. Again, there were gasps, but underneath she had on another one. More laughter. The audience was on our side.<br />
<br />
:&#8212;[[Karla Jay]], ''Tales of the Lavender Menace'', 143<br />
<br />
After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out [[mimeograph]]ed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference. A few members of the planning comittee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and [[homophobia]] (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by [[Gay Liberation Front]] men and women) (Brownmiller 98).<br />
<br />
==Effects==<br />
The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the [[second-wave feminism|second-wave feminist]] movement, and as a founding moment for [[lesbian feminism]]. Ater the zap, many of the organizers continued to meet, and decided to create a lasting organization to continue their activism, which they eventually decided to call the "[[Radicalesbians]]." At the next national conference of [[National Organization for Women|NOW]], in September [[1971]], the delegates adopted a resolution recognizing lesbianism and lesbian rights as "a legitimate concern for feminism" [http://www.feminist.org/research/chronicles/fc1971.html].<br />
<br />
In [[1999]], [[Susan Brownmiller]] described the impact by writing that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). [[Karla Jay]] described it in her memoirs as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). "We felt as well," Jay wrote, "that the zap was only the first of many actions to come and that lesbian liberation was suddenly and unstoppably on the rise" (145).<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [[Susan Brownmiller|Brownmiller, Susan]] (1999). [http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/in_our_time.html ''In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution''] (ISBN 0385314868).<br />
* [[Karla Jay|Jay, Karla]] (1999). ''Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation'' (ISBN 0465083668).<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139907Lavender Menace2006-02-17T19:25:37Z<p>Radgeek: /* Second Congress to Unite Women */ moving down to Effects</p>
<hr />
<div>{{gay rights}}<br />
<br />
The '''Lavender Menace''' was an informal group of [[lesbian]] [[radical feminism|radical feminists]] formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the [[feminism|feminist movement]] at the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]]. Members included [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], [[Ellen Shumsky]], and [[Michaela Griffo]], and were mostly members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
==Origins==<br />
The phrase "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan, and some other straight feminists as well, worried that the association would hamstring feminists' ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement. Under her direction, NOW attempted to distance itself from lesbian causes &#8212; up to omitting the New York chapter of the [[Daughters of Bilitis]] from the list of sponsors of the [[First Congress to Unite Women]] in [[November 1969]]. Friedan's remarks and the decision to drop DOB from the sponsor list led lesbian feminist [[Rita Mae Brown]] to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in [[February 1970]] (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). On [[March 15]], [[1970]], straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender ''herring'', perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a ''[[New York Times Magazine]]'' article.<br />
<br />
Brownmiller later said that when she wrote the article, she had intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but some lesbian feminists (especially [[Michaela Griffo]]) took her remarks as "a scathing put-down" (Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" (Jay 140)&#8212;because they felt that the quip dismissed lesbians as an insignificant part of the movement, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues.<br />
<br />
==Second Congress to Unite Women==<br />
[[Rita Mae Brown]] suggested to her [[consciousness-raising]] group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]], which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a "zap" for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "[[The Woman-Identified Woman]]" and made t-shirts, dyed purple and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). [[Karla Jay]], one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:<br />
<br />
: Finally, we were ready. The Second Congress to Unite Women got under way on May 1 at 7:00 PM at Intermediate School 70 on West Seventeenth Street in Manhattan. About three hundred women filed into the school auditorium. Just as the first speaker came to the microphone, [[Jesse Falstein]], a GLF member, and Michaela [Griffo] switched off the lights and pulled the plug on the mike. (They had cased the place the previous day, and knew exactly where the switches were and how to work them.) I was planted in the middle of the audience, and I could hear my coconspirators running down both aisles. Some were laughing, while others were emitting [[rebel yell]]s. When Michaela and Jesse flipped the lights back on, both aisles were lined with seventeen lesbians wearing their Lavender Menace T-shirts and holding the placards we had made. Some invited the audience to join them. I stood up and yelled, "Yes, yes, sisters! I'm tired of being in the closet because of the women's movement." Much to the horror of the audience, I unbuttoned the long-sleeved red blouse I was wearing and ripped it off. Underneath, I was wearing a Lavender Menace T-shirt. There were hoots of laughter as I joined the others in the aisles. Then Rita [Mae Brown] yelled to members of the audience, "Who wants to join us?"<br />
<br />
:"I do, I do," several replied.<br />
<br />
: Then Rita also pulled off her Lavender Menace T-shirt. Again, there were gasps, but underneath she had on another one. More laughter. The audience was on our side.<br />
<br />
:&#8212;[[Karla Jay]], ''Tales of the Lavender Menace'', 143<br />
<br />
After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out [[mimeograph]]ed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference. A few members of the planning comittee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and [[homophobia]] (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by [[Gay Liberation Front]] men and women) (Brownmiller 98).<br />
<br />
==Effects==<br />
The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the [[second-wave feminism|second-wave feminist]] movement, and as a founding moment for [[lesbian feminism]]. Susan Brownmiller described the impact by saying that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). Karla Jay described it in her memoirs as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). "We felt as well," Jay wrote, "that the zap was only the first of many actions to come and that lesbian liberation was suddenly and unstoppably on the rise" (145).<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [[Susan Brownmiller|Brownmiller, Susan]] (1999). [http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/in_our_time.html ''In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution''] (ISBN 0385314868).<br />
* [[Karla Jay|Jay, Karla]] (1999). ''Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation'' (ISBN 0465083668).<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139906Lavender Menace2006-02-17T04:42:34Z<p>Radgeek: /* Effects */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{gay rights}}<br />
<br />
The '''Lavender Menace''' was an informal group of [[lesbian]] [[radical feminism|radical feminists]] formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the [[feminism|feminist movement]] at the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]]. Members included [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], [[Ellen Shumsky]], and [[Michaela Griffo]], and were mostly members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
==Origins==<br />
The phrase "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan, and some other straight feminists as well, worried that the association would hamstring feminists' ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement. Under her direction, NOW attempted to distance itself from lesbian causes &#8212; up to omitting the New York chapter of the [[Daughters of Bilitis]] from the list of sponsors of the [[First Congress to Unite Women]] in [[November 1969]]. Friedan's remarks and the decision to drop DOB from the sponsor list led lesbian feminist [[Rita Mae Brown]] to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in [[February 1970]] (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). On [[March 15]], [[1970]], straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender ''herring'', perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a ''[[New York Times Magazine]]'' article.<br />
<br />
Brownmiller later said that when she wrote the article, she had intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but some lesbian feminists (especially [[Michaela Griffo]]) took her remarks as "a scathing put-down" (Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" (Jay 140)&#8212;because they felt that the quip dismissed lesbians as an insignificant part of the movement, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues.<br />
<br />
==Second Congress to Unite Women==<br />
[[Rita Mae Brown]] suggested to her [[consciousness-raising]] group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]], which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a "zap" for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "[[The Woman-Identified Woman]]" and made t-shirts, dyed purple and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). [[Karla Jay]], one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:<br />
<br />
: Finally, we were ready. The Second Congress to Unite Women got under way on May 1 at 7:00 PM at Intermediate School 70 on West Seventeenth Street in Manhattan. About three hundred women filed into the school auditorium. Just as the first speaker came to the microphone, [[Jesse Falstein]], a GLF member, and Michaela [Griffo] switched off the lights and pulled the plug on the mike. (They had cased the place the previous day, and knew exactly where the switches were and how to work them.) I was planted in the middle of the audience, and I could hear my coconspirators running down both aisles. Some were laughing, while others were emitting [[rebel yell]]s. When Michaela and Jesse flipped the lights back on, both aisles were lined with seventeen lesbians wearing their Lavender Menace T-shirts and holding the placards we had made. Some invited the audience to join them. I stood up and yelled, "Yes, yes, sisters! I'm tired of being in the closet because of the women's movement." Much to the horror of the audience, I unbuttoned the long-sleeved red blouse I was wearing and ripped it off. Underneath, I was wearing a Lavender Menace T-shirt. There were hoots of laughter as I joined the others in the aisles. Then Rita [Mae Brown] yelled to members of the audience, "Who wants to join us?"<br />
<br />
:"I do, I do," several replied.<br />
<br />
: Then Rita also pulled off her Lavender Menace T-shirt. Again, there were gasps, but underneath she had on another one. More laughter. The audience was on our side.<br />
<br />
:&#8212;[[Karla Jay]], ''Tales of the Lavender Menace'', 143<br />
<br />
After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out [[mimeograph]]ed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference. A few members of the planning comittee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and [[homophobia]] (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by [[Gay Liberation Front]] men and women) (Brownmiller 98). After the zap, many of the members went on to form an ongoing organization to continue their activism, which they eventually decided to call the "[[Radicalesbians]]."<br />
<br />
==Effects==<br />
The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the [[second-wave feminism|second-wave feminist]] movement, and as a founding moment for [[lesbian feminism]]. Susan Brownmiller described the impact by saying that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). Karla Jay described it in her memoirs as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). "We felt as well," Jay wrote, "that the zap was only the first of many actions to come and that lesbian liberation was suddenly and unstoppably on the rise" (145).<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [[Susan Brownmiller|Brownmiller, Susan]] (1999). [http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/in_our_time.html ''In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution''] (ISBN 0385314868).<br />
* [[Karla Jay|Jay, Karla]] (1999). ''Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation'' (ISBN 0465083668).<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139905Lavender Menace2006-02-17T04:30:56Z<p>Radgeek: sections</p>
<hr />
<div>{{gay rights}}<br />
<br />
The '''Lavender Menace''' was an informal group of [[lesbian]] [[radical feminism|radical feminists]] formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the [[feminism|feminist movement]] at the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]]. Members included [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], [[Ellen Shumsky]], and [[Michaela Griffo]], and were mostly members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
==Origins==<br />
The phrase "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan, and some other straight feminists as well, worried that the association would hamstring feminists' ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement. Under her direction, NOW attempted to distance itself from lesbian causes &#8212; up to omitting the New York chapter of the [[Daughters of Bilitis]] from the list of sponsors of the [[First Congress to Unite Women]] in [[November 1969]]. Friedan's remarks and the decision to drop DOB from the sponsor list led lesbian feminist [[Rita Mae Brown]] to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in [[February 1970]] (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). On [[March 15]], [[1970]], straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender ''herring'', perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a ''[[New York Times Magazine]]'' article.<br />
<br />
Brownmiller later said that when she wrote the article, she had intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but some lesbian feminists (especially [[Michaela Griffo]]) took her remarks as "a scathing put-down" (Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" (Jay 140)&#8212;because they felt that the quip dismissed lesbians as an insignificant part of the movement, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues.<br />
<br />
==Second Congress to Unite Women==<br />
[[Rita Mae Brown]] suggested to her [[consciousness-raising]] group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]], which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a "zap" for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "[[The Woman-Identified Woman]]" and made t-shirts, dyed purple and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). [[Karla Jay]], one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:<br />
<br />
: Finally, we were ready. The Second Congress to Unite Women got under way on May 1 at 7:00 PM at Intermediate School 70 on West Seventeenth Street in Manhattan. About three hundred women filed into the school auditorium. Just as the first speaker came to the microphone, [[Jesse Falstein]], a GLF member, and Michaela [Griffo] switched off the lights and pulled the plug on the mike. (They had cased the place the previous day, and knew exactly where the switches were and how to work them.) I was planted in the middle of the audience, and I could hear my coconspirators running down both aisles. Some were laughing, while others were emitting [[rebel yell]]s. When Michaela and Jesse flipped the lights back on, both aisles were lined with seventeen lesbians wearing their Lavender Menace T-shirts and holding the placards we had made. Some invited the audience to join them. I stood up and yelled, "Yes, yes, sisters! I'm tired of being in the closet because of the women's movement." Much to the horror of the audience, I unbuttoned the long-sleeved red blouse I was wearing and ripped it off. Underneath, I was wearing a Lavender Menace T-shirt. There were hoots of laughter as I joined the others in the aisles. Then Rita [Mae Brown] yelled to members of the audience, "Who wants to join us?"<br />
<br />
:"I do, I do," several replied.<br />
<br />
: Then Rita also pulled off her Lavender Menace T-shirt. Again, there were gasps, but underneath she had on another one. More laughter. The audience was on our side.<br />
<br />
:&#8212;[[Karla Jay]], ''Tales of the Lavender Menace'', 143<br />
<br />
After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out [[mimeograph]]ed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference. A few members of the planning comittee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and [[homophobia]] (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by [[Gay Liberation Front]] men and women) (Brownmiller 98). After the zap, many of the members went on to form an ongoing organization to continue their activism, which they eventually decided to call the "[[Radicalesbians]]."<br />
<br />
==Effects==<br />
The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the [[second-wave feminism|second-wave feminist]] movement, and as a founding moment for [[lesbian feminism]]. Susan Brownmiller described the impact by saying that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). Karla Jay described it as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). <br />
<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [[Susan Brownmiller|Brownmiller, Susan]] (1999). [http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/in_our_time.html ''In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution''] (ISBN 0385314868).<br />
* [[Karla Jay|Jay, Karla]] (1999). ''Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation'' (ISBN 0465083668).<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139904Lavender Menace2006-02-17T04:29:19Z<p>Radgeek: rewrite a bit, do the block quote better</p>
<hr />
<div>{{gay rights}}<br />
<br />
The '''Lavender Menace''' was an informal group of [[lesbian]] [[radical feminism|radical feminists]] formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the [[feminism|feminist movement]] at the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]]. Members included [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], [[Ellen Shumsky]], and [[Michaela Griffo]], and were mostly members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
The phrase "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan, and some other straight feminists as well, worried that the association would hamstring feminists' ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement. Under her direction, NOW attempted to distance itself from lesbian causes &#8212; up to omitting the New York chapter of the [[Daughters of Bilitis]] from the list of sponsors of the [[First Congress to Unite Women]] in [[November 1969]]. Friedan's remarks and the decision to drop DOB from the sponsor list led lesbian feminist [[Rita Mae Brown]] to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in [[February 1970]] (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). On [[March 15]], [[1970]], straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender ''herring'', perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a ''[[New York Times Magazine]]'' article.<br />
<br />
Brownmiller later said that when she wrote the article, she had intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but some lesbian feminists (especially [[Michaela Griffo]]) took her remarks as "a scathing put-down" (Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" (Jay 140)&#8212;because they felt that the quip dismissed lesbians as an insignificant part of the movement, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues.<br />
<br />
[[Rita Mae Brown]] suggested to her [[consciousness-raising]] group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]], which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a "zap" for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "[[The Woman-Identified Woman]]" and made t-shirts, dyed purple and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). [[Karla Jay]], one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:<br />
<br />
: Finally, we were ready. The Second Congress to Unite Women got under way on May 1 at 7:00 PM at Intermediate School 70 on West Seventeenth Street in Manhattan. About three hundred women filed into the school auditorium. Just as the first speaker came to the microphone, [[Jesse Falstein]], a GLF member, and Michaela [Griffo] switched off the lights and pulled the plug on the mike. (They had cased the place the previous day, and knew exactly where the switches were and how to work them.) I was planted in the middle of the audience, and I could hear my coconspirators running down both aisles. Some were laughing, while others were emitting [[rebel yell]]s. When Michaela and Jesse flipped the lights back on, both aisles were lined with seventeen lesbians wearing their Lavender Menace T-shirts and holding the placards we had made. Some invited the audience to join them. I stood up and yelled, "Yes, yes, sisters! I'm tired of being in the closet because of the women's movement." Much to the horror of the audience, I unbuttoned the long-sleeved red blouse I was wearing and ripped it off. Underneath, I was wearing a Lavender Menace T-shirt. There were hoots of laughter as I joined the others in the aisles. Then Rita [Mae Brown] yelled to members of the audience, "Who wants to join us?"<br />
<br />
:"I do, I do," several replied.<br />
<br />
: Then Rita also pulled off her Lavender Menace T-shirt. Again, there were gasps, but underneath she had on another one. More laughter. The audience was on our side.<br />
<br />
:&#8212;[[Karla Jay]], ''Tales of the Lavender Menace'', 143<br />
<br />
After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out [[mimeograph]]ed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference. A few members of the planning comittee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and [[homophobia]] (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by [[Gay Liberation Front]] men and women) (Brownmiller 98). After the zap, many of the members went on to form an ongoing organization to continue their activism, which they eventually decided to call the "[[Radicalesbians]]."<br />
<br />
The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the [[second-wave feminism|second-wave feminist]] movement, and as a founding moment for [[lesbian feminism]]. Susan Brownmiller described the impact by saying that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). Karla Jay described it as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). <br />
<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [[Susan Brownmiller|Brownmiller, Susan]] (1999). [http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/in_our_time.html ''In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution''] (ISBN 0385314868).<br />
* [[Karla Jay|Jay, Karla]] (1999). ''Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation'' (ISBN 0465083668).<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Gandy&diff=122584793Kim Gandy2006-02-12T02:43:54Z<p>Radgeek: start us off</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Kim Gandy]] (b. [[1954]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[feminism|feminist]], and currently the President of the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
Gandy was born in Louisiana in [[1954]], and graduated from [[Louisiana Tech University]] with a Bachelor's of Science in [[mathematics]]. Gandy soon took a job with AT&T, and, outraged that they required her husband's permission for employee benefits, joined Louisiana NOW in [[1973]], where she spent the next several years involved in campaigns that would eventually overturn Louisiana's state "Head and Master" law, which gave husbands unilateral control over all property jointly owned by a married couple. Inspired by her activism in NOW, she studied law at [[Loyola University New Orleans]], graduated in [[1978]], and took a position as Assistant District Attorney in [[New Orleans]]. She served as President of Lousiana NOW from [[1979]] through [[1981]], National Secretary of NOW from [[1987]] to [[1991]], and Executive Vice President of NOW from [[1991]] to [[2001]]. She was elected national President of NOW in [[2001]], and re-elected for a second term in [[2005]].<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
* [http://www.now.org/officers/kg.html NOW Officers: Kim Gandy &#8211; President]<br />
* [http://www.now.org/organization/conference/2005/actfornow.html 2005 National NOW Elections &#8211; Candidate Information]<br />
<br />
{{start box}}<br />
{{incumbent succession box|<br />
title=[[List of Presidents of the National Organization for Women|President of the National Organization for Women]]|<br />
start=[[2001]]|<br />
before=[[Patricia Ireland]]|<br />
}}<br />
{{end box}}<br />
<br />
{{fem-stub}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:1954 births]]<br />
[[Category:Feminists]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139902Lavender Menace2006-02-04T22:06:36Z<p>Radgeek: Expansion, drawing from Jay and Brownmiller</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Lavender Menace''' was an informal group of radical [[lesbians]] formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the [[feminism|feminist movement]] at the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]]. Members included [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], [[Ellen Shumsky]], and [[Michaela Griffo]], and were mostly members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
The name "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan and some other straight feminists did not want to be associated with lesbians because of the stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians that predominated at the time, and Friedan's remarks, and the attempts of NOW to distance itself from lesbian causes (such as omitting the New York chapter of the [[Daughters of Bilitis]] from the list of sponsors of the [[First Congress to Unite Women]] in [[November 1969]]), led [[Rita Mae Brown]] to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in [[February 1970]] (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). When straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender ''herring'', perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a ''[[New York Times Magazine]]'' article (March 15, 1970), which Brownmiller says she intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but which some lesbian feminists (especially [[Michaela Griffo]]) took as "a scathing put-down"(Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" as insignificant, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues (Jay 140).<br />
<br />
[[Rita Mae Brown]] suggested to her [[consciousness-raising]] group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the [[Second Congress to Unite Women]] in [[New York City]] on [[May 1]], [[1970]], which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a "zap" for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "[[The Woman-Identified Woman]]" and made t-shirts, dyed purple and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). [[Karla Jay]], one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:<br />
<br />
{{quotation|Finally, we were ready. The Second Congress to Unite Women got under way on May 1 at 7:00 PM at Intermediate School 70 on West Seventeenth Street in Manhattan. About three hundred women filed into the school auditorium. Just as the first speaker came to the microphone, [[Jesse Falstein]], a GLF member, and Michaela [Griffo] switched off the lights and pulled the plug on the mike. (They had cased the place the previous day, and knew exactly where the switches were and how to work them.) I was planted in the middle of the audience, and I could hear my coconspirators running down both aisles. Some were laughing, while others were emitting [[rebel yell]]s. When Michaela and Jesse flipped the lights back on, both aisles were lined with seventeen lesbians wearing their Lavender Menace T-shirts and holding the placards we had made. Some invited the audience to join them. I stood up and yelled, "Yes, yes, sisters! I'm tired of being in the closet because of the women's movement." Much to the horror of the audience, I unbuttoned the long-sleeved red blouse I was wearing and ripped it off. Underneath, I was wearing a Lavender Menace T-shirt. There were hoots of laughter as I joined the others in the aisles. Then Rita [Mae Brown] yelled to members of the audience, "Who wants to join us?"<br />
<br />
"I do, I do," several replied.<br />
<br />
Then Rita also pulled off her Lavender Menace T-shirt. Again, there were gasps, but underneath she had on another one. More laughter. The audience was on our side.|Karla Jay|''Tales of the Lavender Menace'', 143}}<br />
<br />
After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out [[mimeograph]]ed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference. A few members of the planning comittee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and [[homophobia]] (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by [[Gay Liberation Front]] men and women) (Brownmiller 98). After the zap, many of the members went on to form an ongoing organization to continue their activism, which they eventually decided to call the "[[Radicalesbians]]."<br />
<br />
The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the [[second-wave feminism|second-wave feminist]] movement, and as a founding moment for [[lesbian feminism]]. Susan Brownmiller described the impact by saying that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). Karla Jay described it as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). <br />
<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [[Susan Brownmiller|Brownmiller, Susan]] (1999). [http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/in_our_time.html ''In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution''] (ISBN 0385314868).<br />
* [[Karla Jay|Jay, Karla]] (1999). ''Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation'' (ISBN 0465083668).<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Menace&diff=91139901Lavender Menace2006-01-27T00:13:20Z<p>Radgeek: cats</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Lavender Menace''' is a group of radical [[lesbians]] formed in [[New York]] in [[1970]]. Original members include [[Karla Jay]], [[Rita Mae Brown]], [[Lois Hart]], [[Barbara Love]], and [[Ellen Shumsky]]. The founders were made up of members of the [[Gay Liberation Front]] (GLF) and the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW).<br />
<br />
The name "Lavender Menace" was first used in 1969 by [[Betty Friedan]], president of NOW, to describe what she felt was a public relations threat to the emerging women's movement: lesbians.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/radicalesbians.html Radical Lesbians at GLBTQ ]<br />
<br />
[[Category:History of women's rights in the United States]]<br />
[[Category:LGBT rights organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Feminist organizations]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Lavender Menace]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Park_Street_Church&diff=95655984Park Street Church2006-01-24T05:32:09Z<p>Radgeek: link to Garrison's July 4 oration</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Park Street Church2 Boston USA.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Park Street Church, Boston]]<br />
The '''Park Street Church''' in [[Boston, Massachusetts]] is an active Conservative [[Congregational Church]] at the corner of Beacon Street and Park Street. <br />
<br />
Park Street Church is a historic stop on the [[Freedom Trail]]. It was founded in [[1809]] by twenty-six local people, mostly former members of the [[Old South Meeting House]]. The cornerstone of the church was laid on [[May 1]] and construction was completed by the end of the year, under the guidance of Peter Banner (architect), Benajah Young (chief mason) and Solomon Willards (woodcarver).<br />
<br />
The church quickly became known as "Brimstone Corner", though whether this was for the storage of gunpowder during the War of 1812 or for the fiery sermons delivered from the corner balcony overlooking Boston Common is not entirely clear.<br />
<br />
Park Street Church has a strong tradition of missions, evangelic doctrine and application of Scripture to social issues. On [[July 4]], [[1829]], [[William Lloyd Garrison]] delievered his [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=562 Address to the Colonization Society] at Park Street, making his first major public statement against [[slavery]]. The church also hosted the debut of ''America'' by [[Samuel Francis Smith]] on [[July 4]], [[1831]].<br />
<br />
Today, Park Street is a thriving congregation. Thousands of worshippers join together at one of the four services held each Sunday and participate in the dozens of ministries and missions and outreach programs the Church hosts. Park Street is an international Congregation, with members from more than 60 countries. The Church attracts many regular worshippers from among the undergrads, grad students and faculty at Boston-area universities. <br />
<br />
The church is currently pastored by [[Gordon P. Hugenberger|Dr. Gordon P. Hugenberger]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [http://www.parkstreet.org ParkStreet.org]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Buildings and structures in Massachusetts]]<br />
[[Category:Freedom Trail]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161669Peter Winch2005-06-13T04:50:36Z<p>Radgeek: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
{{philo-stub}}<br />
[[Category:Analytic philosophers|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths|Winch, Peter]]<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161668Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:28:06Z<p>Radgeek: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
{{philo-stub}}<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths|Winch, Peter]]<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161667Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:24:34Z<p>Radgeek: </p>
<hr />
<div>:{{philo-stub}}<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths|Winch, Peter]]<br />
<br />
[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161665Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:24:02Z<p>Radgeek: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{philo-stub}}<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161664Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:23:39Z<p>Radgeek: /* Further reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161663Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:01:34Z<p>Radgeek: /* Further reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond<br />
<br />
{{stub}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births|Winch, Peter]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths|Winch, Peter]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161662Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:00:25Z<p>Radgeek: /* Further reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond<br />
<br />
{{phi-stub}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Winch&diff=71161661Peter Winch2005-06-12T06:00:09Z<p>Radgeek: Let's get a start</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Peter Winch]] (1926-1997) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] known for his contributions to the philosophy of the [[social sciences]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein scholarship]], [[ethics]], and the [[philosophy of religion]]. <br />
<br />
Winch is perhaps most famous for his early book, ''[[The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy]]'' (1958), an attack on [[positivism]] in the [[social sciences]], drawing on the work of [[R. G. Collingwood]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s later philosophy. Winch describes his aims in the opening paragraphs of the first chapter:<br />
<br />
: That the social sciences are in their infancy has come to be a platitude amongst writers of textbooks on the subject. They will argue that this is because the social sciences have been slow to emulate the natural sciences and emancipate themselves from the dead hand of philosophy; that there was a time when there was no clear distinction between philosohy and natural science; but that owing to the transformation of affairs round about the seventeenth century natural science has made great bounds ever since. But, we are told, this revolution has not yet taken place in the social sciences, or at least it is only now in process of taking place. Perhaps social science has not yet found its Newton but the conditions are being created in which such a genius could arise. But above all, it is urged, we must follow the methods of natural science if we are to make any significant progress.<br />
: I propose, in this monograph, to attack such a conception of the relation between the social studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences. [...] It will consist of a war on two fronts: first, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of philosophy: second, a criticism of some prevalent contemporary ideas about the nature of the social studies. The main tactics will be a pincer movement: the same point will be reached by arguing from opposite directions. To complete the military analogy before it gets out of hand, my main war aim will be to demonstrate that the two apparently diverse fronts on which the war is being waged are not in reality diverse at all; that to be clear about the nature of philosophy and to be clear about the nature of the social studies amount to the same thing. For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy must be concerned with the nature of human society. (pp. 1-3)<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.acumenpublishing.com/Lyas/PeterWinch/index.html ''Peter Winch''] by Colin Lyas<br />
* [http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Peter_Winch.htm '''Peter Winch''' 1926-97] by Rupert Read<br />
* [http://wab.aksis.uib.no/wab_contrib-dc.page Winch, Malcolm, and the Unity of Wittgenstein's Philosophy] by Cora Diamond<br />
<br />
{{phil-stub}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers]]<br />
[[Category:1926 births]]<br />
[[Category:1997 deaths]]</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Parsons&diff=167153968Lucy Parsons2004-06-08T14:22:15Z<p>Radgeek: Rewrote paragraph on Albert a bit</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Anarchists]][[Category:Labor organizers]]<br />
'''Lucy Parsons''' ([[1853]]-[[1942]]) was a [[radical]] [[labor movement|labor]] organizer, [[anarchist]] and is remembered as a powerful orator. She was born in [[Texas]] (likely as a slave) to parents of [[Native American]], [[Black American]] and [[Mexican]] ancestry.<br />
<br />
In [[1871]] she married [[Albert Parsons]], a former [[Confederate]] soldier, and both were forced to flee from Texas north to [[Chicago]] because of the intolerance caused by their interracial marriage. <br />
<br />
Described by the Chicago Police Department as "more dangerous than a thousand rioters", Lucy Parsons and her husband became highly effective anarchist organizers primarily involved in the labor movement but also participating in [[revolutionary]] [[activism]] on behalf of political prisoners, people of color, the homeless and women. <br />
<br />
In [[1886]], her husband Albert, who had been heavily involved in the labor movement for the [[eight-hour day]], was arrested and executed by the state of [[Illinois]] on charges that he had conspired in the [[Haymarket Riot]]&mdash;an event which was widely regarded as a political frame-up, and which marked the beginning of [[May Day]] labor rallies in protest.<br />
<br />
In [[1905]], she participated in the founding of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]], and continued her fight for liberty and equality until her death in [[1942]]. The [[state]] still viewed Lucy Parsons as such threat to the status quo that after her death, police seized her library of over 1500 books and all of her personal papers.</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Parsons&diff=167153967Lucy Parsons2004-06-08T14:01:43Z<p>Radgeek: Categories</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Anarchists]][[Category:Labor organizers]]<br />
'''Lucy Parsons''' ([[1853]]-[[1942]]) was a [[radical]] [[labor movement|labor]] organizer, [[anarchist]] and is remembered as a powerful orator. She was born in [[Texas]] (likely as a slave) to parents of [[Native American]], [[Black American]] and [[Mexican]] ancestry.<br />
<br />
In [[1871]] she married [[Albert Parsons]], a former [[Confederate]] soldier, and both were forced to flee from Texas north to [[Chicago]] because of the intolerance caused by their interracial marriage. <br />
<br />
Described by the Chicago Police Department as "more dangerous than a thousand rioters", Lucy Parsons and her husband became highly effective anarchist organizers primarily involved in the labor movement but also participating in [[revolutionary]] [[activism]] on behalf of political prisoners, people of color, the homeless and women. <br />
<br />
In [[1886]], her husband Albert Parsons was executed by the state of [[Illinois]] for his participation in the movement for the eight-hour day during the [[Haymarket Riot]] (an event which marks the beginning of [[May Day]]).<br />
<br />
In [[1905]], she participated in the founding of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]], and continued her fight for liberty and equality until her death in [[1942]]. The [[state]] still viewed Lucy Parsons as such threat to the status quo that after her death, police seized her library of over 1500 books and all of her personal papers.</div>Radgeekhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruth_Barcan_Marcus&diff=93690623Ruth Barcan Marcus2004-06-04T23:59:56Z<p>Radgeek: Categories</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Contemporary philosophers]][[Category:Analytic philosophers]][[Category:American philosophers]][[Category:Women in philosophy]]<br />
'''Ruth Barcan Marcus''' is the [[philosopher]] and [[logician]] after whom the [[Barcan formula]] is named. She is a Senior Research Scholar at [[Yale University]] and a Visiting Professor (for one term per year) at the [[University of California, Irvine]].<br />
<br />
She got her [[PhD]] in [[1946]] from Yale University.<br />
<br />
In [[1992]], she was one of twenty philosophers who signed a letter to the [[University of Cambridge]] to protest its controversial award of an honorary doctorate to [[Jacques Derrida]].<br />
<br />
She has written or edited the following [[book]]s:<br />
*''The Logical Enterprise'', ed. with A. Anderson, R. Martin, Yale, 1995<br />
*''Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science'', VII, eds. R. Barcan Marcus et al., North Holland, 1986<br />
*''Modalities: Philosophical Essays'', Oxford University Press, 1993. Paperback; 1995<br />
<br />
In his [[1995]] paper, ''Marcus, Kripke, and the Origin of The New Theory of Reference'', [[Quentin Smith]] made the case that [[Saul Kripke]] had taken credit for several ideas without properly crediting Ruth Barcan Marcus.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.yale.edu/philos/people/marcus_ruth.html Yale University Philosophy Faculty Biography: Ruth Marcus]<br />
*[http://www.qsmithwmu.com/marcus,_kripke,_and_the_origin_of_the_new_theory_of_reference.htm Marcus, Kripke, and the Origin of The New Theory of Reference]<br />
<br />
{{Contemporary_Philosophers}}<br />
<br />
{{stub}}</div>Radgeek