Home | About | Donate

Who's Leading The Charge For Change? Women


Who's Leading The Charge For Change? Women

Laura Flanders

Towards the end of the new movie, This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein, author of the book that inspired the film, notices something about who’s leading the charge for change.

They come from sacrifice zones, the very same places the powers that be have written off for environmental or ecological devastation. There’s another thing about those leaders too. From Beijing to Montana to the Alberta Tar Sands, those in the front lines of resistance are women.


Laura herself is a stand up Lady, and I have often been knocked over by her incisive work. It takes courage to stand up and simply say what you are seeing - doubly so in these times.

And the contributions made by those who want a more equal system are often obfuscated by those who want to stand by simply standing on someone's head, figuratively, and literally on some one else's hopes and wishes.

It is about time we highlight those who contribute in a constructive way, and recognize those who do what they can for others, while putting themselves at risk. The women mentioned here should be lauded, and creating the culture of support will see this phenomenon multiply.

Somewhere deep within my omniscient gemini rising mind is red flagging gender tribalism. I do understand in our current context, we desperately need Ms. Flanders call for recognition.


I've noticed a lot of women stirring things up, too.

I disagree with Laura in asserting that biology is, in fact, part of the equation.

I would like to take this observation and explore it further:

"When Pope Francis on his trip to the US, met for a moment with an opponent of marriage equality - it caused a firestorm. The fact that he was surrounded the entire time by men and an institution that opposes female equality - was met with a respectful hush."

Generally, any indication of this inequity is almost always met with a "respectful hush."

If human beings were not taught to grant all homage to a father god, a father god who represents the antithesis of the biological FACT that females give life and are the Creators of Life on the physical plane; then the vision of Life as a SHARED CREATION would set up a foundation for genuine gender-based equality.

Riane Eisler has written at length about those societies and civilizations that predated patriarchy. People living in those earlier eras worshiped the Goddess-Mother as life-giving force.

Since every child was a child of That Mother, there was no ranking system... as so unlike patriarchy.

Dr. King can be forgiven for citing militarism, poverty, and racism as the triplicate sins of the world and missing--entirely--the brutal plight of women. According to Eve Ensler, one billion women will experience violence from a male during the course of their lifetimes.

The epidemic of a particular species of violence based entirely upon misogyny is seldom discussed. It's found in the wide-scale murder of women throughout Central America and Mexico's border towns. These crimes go without redress.

Robert Koehler, Father John Dear, and many other writers refuse to recognize gender-based violence even though it is incredibly pervasive.

The moral twisting that must go on to make this particular form of criminality invisible reminds me of the psychiatrist so insistent on making gender invisible that with evidence that 90% of serial killers ARE men, he STILL tried to insist on a gender-based equivalence.

I think many men cannot face their own shadow. Whether they push their wives or girlfriends around, saw their fathers treating their mothers shabbily, or just have internalized the religious rhetoric that grants them unquestioned superiority, the shadow of misogyny is dark and deep and too many refuse to face it.

Although the same anti-Mother Nature corporate sociopaths who have done much to taint the world's precious seed stocks with genetically engineered poisons (and mutations) are now no doubt aimed at mastering cloning... what is also a Divine component of ALL matter is the marriage between Yin and Yang.

DNA is composed of 2 (double) strands, and for human beings, it requires equal input from the Father and the Mother. Both genders come together to make life happen, although the Female expresses it.

In chemistry, an equal number of negatively charged electrons encircle a nucleus composed of positively charged protons. So even on an elemental level, there is a Yin-Yang component to the nature of molecular structures, and electricity, itself.

EVERYWHERE the integral dance between Yin and Yang is underway. SHE is not HE. It is the UNION between the polarities that makes for oneness...

In our world under patriarchy, Her witness is almost entirely bleached out. It's also seen in the movement that hides the crimes against Black girls: "Say Her Name!"

One reason why I rail against the insistence on any one-size-fits-all frame is that it always represents the voice of the male, the Yang side... while keeping the feminine Divine partner, co-pilot (in this thing called life), and complement... invisible.

Not anymore!

THAT is what so many women are expressing.

The shift in global consciousness is about at last recognizing The Divine Daughter... not just the Divine Son. HER voice has been missing from all decision-making tables for too long.

In every photo of just about every major gathering of key figures in the news, those with decision-making capacities, there may be ONE token woman or ONE token person of color. Making fun of the actual fact that it's almost always a bunch of old, rich, white guys... diffuses the significance of so limited a grouping deciding so much for so many.


I have a Gemini Sun as well as Rising sign. I find your comment very interesting: "Gender Tribalism." Yes, we Gemini's seem to see both sides of the coin at the same time. It reminds me of Jung's construct of "The Syzygy." I here duly recognize Sioux Rose's comment. Indeed, the balance of s/he, is the perfection of mankind. We are not there yet. Our world seems to be in a perpetual state of adolescence! The Patriarchy keeps exerting its thuggish power to keep down--time and again--the rise of the Feminine Divine. That of course is what they purposed to do ever since the "Masculine Dominant" god took over. My God is also Goddess.

ZeroPoint....look at women like Hilary Clinton. She's a war-hawk, as far as we know, and likely a Neo-Conservative in her thinking. She has power only because she's NOT "soft" on Feminism. She has power, because the Patriarchy approves of her brand of influence; in fact they formed it. Let her step out of line, and poof....all gone. As for Naomi Klein, I believe she is being PC-ish sometimes. She operates within the Patriarchy, but is a feminist at heart (IMO). What I'm saying is: Women must respect their gender. We understand both sides, but we must choose who we are. So, don't "red flag" anything about your belief that women should be recognized for their contributions, and if you are a female, then embrace that as a well-balanced one, i.e., you have both masculine and feminine reconciled within you.

Sometime around 1983 or so, when I was coming out of Christian Fundamentalism, I prayed to find "The Feminine Face of God," and boy oh boy did I ever! The world needs balance, however you define that, i.e., Yin/Yang, Feminine/Masculine. It is the time! Now!


Thank You so much for your comment.

The time may be now, but every effort is being made those who do nothing else to quash any change. The same people who shouted for Phillip Morris are now shouting for the MIC.

This is exactly the force that turned Men in cultures that Worship Goddesses to Schizoid Workbots in Colonial countries, and women eyeing the next mini trinkets It is one thing The overarching media propaganda has not left any space for us to be ourselves, unless you join the those who are taking over the space, which is what Hillary has done.

Sioux rose points are excellent, but she seems to come from a manglik force.

1983? Gemini/Gemini? You maybe a decade ahead of me and mentally too acute.
Will be in Olytown to pick up my daughter tonigh.


Good stuff, Paula Rae. I appreciate support rather than antagonism which is the usual response generated when I speak of the Divine Balance as I have for 9 years in this forum and about 40 in print media.

Just as words like "Liberal" and "Progressive" have been tainted by persons who adopt those descriptors while setting awful policies, the term "Feminism" when used by someone like Hillary does not do justice to what its ideal represents.

One can take a look at food packaging to find this same problem. So many things that are neither natural nor healthy use descriptive terms that certainly convince consumers that they are both!

In a time of rampant distortions, dis-information, and expensively packaged P.R.- tested deceptions... words indeed can and do get in the way (as Gloria Estefan some time ago rhapsodized.)


What is manglik?

Seems that you and Paula Rae are playing an amateur Astrologer's version of: "If you show me yours, I'll show you mine."

I don't publish my chart specifics since to those who truly know the language of the cosmos, it's no different than putting naked selfies up on Facebook or Twitter. Not my bag...


SiouxRose, I wasn't "playing amateur astrologer," I was simply stating what my sign was. I, like many people, have read lots of stuff about what my sign means/predicts/hypothesizes, etc. Doesn't mean I'm being an astrologer.

Google "manglik dosha" to see what ZeroPoint meant.

BTW.....I support you when you are so clear and informative. Not so much when you're manglik. Just sayin. :o)


You would think that after 6,000 years living under patriarchal hierarchy, women would be ready for a change.


I've parked my psyche on this site more than usual to avoid writing a book. A bit of jet lag on that project means my usual morning writing time has been spent here. Thank you for responding to the comment. I do make an effort to expand the conversation beyond the usual protocols, assumptions, and boundaries.

Part of the New Paradigm requires that individuals look beyond what they took for "reality," and like their ancestors, a few of which sensed there was more to the horizon than its flat edge appearance, set their sights beyond the imagined boundaries!

Sagittarius is the Zodiac's thinker. Gemini is the curious monkey that tries everything, but Sagittarius is the philosopher and usually well-read and seasoned by travel--a sure way to expand consciousness.

BTW: The new book is on Consciousness--what gives it its essence, and what tools exist to expand it. Got any ideas? If I use one, I will credit you. I have already covered about 15 topics/chapters. But I sense it's incomplete.


How about the men? How many men do you know who understand what partnership means or see in their partner their true complement rather than a maid, housekeeper, cook, supplier of child care, and available sexual outlet?

While American men, for the most part, don't lock their women up and force them to wear sheets to cover their faces and bodies, that hardly means that full equal rights are happening in the Homeland Security State.

There are some men who get it; and sadly, there are many women who are so identified with the "reality" that patriarchy has held in place for all those centuries that they can't conceive of any alternative to it.

This problem--and it impacts the balance of the planet in so many ways--is the catalyst for my commitment to writing a book on Consciousness.


But that does not mean that 90% of men are serial killers. That does not even mean that 90% of men are killers, period. A very small percentage of men are, or would be, killers. And an even smaller percentage of women are, or would be, killers. So the gender is not the primary determinant of propensity to kill. Pr(male(x)|killer(x)) can be high while Pr(killer(x)|male(x)) can be, and in fact is, quite low.

The phenomenon of women treating their male partners as dirt also exists.

I just want to consider everyone as human and forget about the divinity blather.



Sisters are doing it for themselves

And any of the rest of us willing to do it with them


You are a very annoying and racist/sexist poster to boot.

You sound like the people who challenge the "Black Lives Matter" with the comeback line--"All Lives Matter." Obviously the latter is true but it obviates the FACT that racism grants to one race enormous privileges at the expense of another; and the SAME holds true when it comes to the status granted to men OVER women. Whether some women--like cats--scratch when they can't take the abuse any longer is largely irrelevant.

And it's also obvious that the statistic doesn't indicate that 90% of men are serial killers.

Posters like you do mental jujitsu to force the conclusion that VIOLENCE is equivalent in both genders.

And when it's patently clear that ALL bodies of power from the global bankers to the Vatican are occupied by white males, you then pull up the token woman or Black guy allowed in... as if their adaptation to the existing system suggests that all people are alike.

This ignorant viewpoint reinforces the system, itself.

Also, when people like Eve Ensler mention the FACT that ONE BILLION women will know violence at the hands of a male during the course of their lifetimes, this sickening fact is overlooked. Instead, people talk about capitalism, the Palestinians, and Bernie Sanders.

Do you have a soul?


You are just illustrating your habit of jumping to conclusions with insufficient data, and insulting anyone who disagrees with your opinion. You do not know whether I belong to the "white" race. You did not see my very firmly pro-choice post in another thread.

You want to make much of the fact that 90% of serial killers are men, concluding that men are inherently more prone to violence and/or they have some sort of over-arching power in society.

I am sure that if I were to take the datum that the overwhelming majority (I did not bother to look up the percentages) of Nobel laureates, of famous mathematicians, of famous composers, of famous sculptors, of famous painters are men; and thereby conclude that men are inherently smarter than women; you would no doubt contest that conclusion, pointing out that men have had more opportunity to pursue careers than women historically (as, unfortunately, they do even now); and you would be right.

Since (overwhelmingly) more women have been, and still are, engaged in domestic duties and child-rearing, more men than women get out of home more, and pursue their interests. Thus men do everything (other than "women's work") more, whether serial killing or winning Nobel prizes.

And you would like to leave it at white males, won't you? How soon do you think a white male coal-miner from West Virginia (or his white male son) is going to be able to join that club? But Chelsea Clinton is already in that club, isn't she? My conclusion is that it is the global capitalist/imperialist oligarchical rule that is the problem confronting the 99.99% of the humanity. The vast majority of the white males are just pawns. Of course racism/sexism etc are "necessary" and are allowed to exist so one set of pawns despise and ill-treat another set of pawns instead of uniting against the real "masters".

But all white males are alike? What if the white males are also adapting to the existing system?

Can you think?



I think Hillary is going to run with Gillibrand (D-NY). Bernie could run with Warren. What a contest!


I have long thought that women are a little further along on evolution than men. Men seem content with the status quo. Women are always trying to make things a little better (at least for themselves, but then, women's lot has always needed bettering).