This may be more of a micro view. Since I believe drugs are our most serious social problem (and have a lot to do with crime and violence), I hope that feminism could yield a more equitable access to drug treatment for women. Now, many single mothers have almost no hope of attending treatment because they can't afford the fees (if any), child care and may not have transportation. I was a child protective services social worker in San Diego and often had to plead with the judge to get flexible plans for mothers who were trying to get their kids back. Drug treatment with the kids is better than without, but programs rarely have housing or child care for them. The judges are usually male and don't have much sensitivity to women's issues.

 

I would not vote for a woman simply because she was a woman.  I would not vote for a candidate on the sole basis of his/her stand on gay marriage either.  While I would love to see (and would vote for) a good, strong female candidate who agreed that gay marriage was a constitutional right if she also had key strengths/qualifications in terms of a record of sound and fair judgement on any number of issues and strategic interests facing the United States, I'm not sure we've got that in Hillary.

 While Hillary has strengths, her track record has often been sullied by a kind of "sell your soul for the desired outcome" mentality and some of her toughness has bordered on the harsh and ill-mannered.  I have not yet decided whether or not I could vote for her, although she certainly stands head and shoulders above some other male candidates and seems to have been more effective for the state of NY than many originally thought she would be.  She's got the brains, no doubt.

 It will be a very interesting and enlightening campaign year. . . and I'll bet a lot of decisions will be made at the 11th hour.

I'll respond to the question of whether I would vote for a woman just because she was one in the exact same manner as Hillary responded when asked if she supported gay marriage as opposed to civil unions, "absolutely not." 

This topic intriques me because being from the big blue state of New York and realizing that Mrs. Clinton is running for 2008, I often wonder if I would vote for ANY woman, just to get a woman in office - even if I couldnt stand her!  What does everyone else think?  Part of me thinks there is simply no way ANY woman could do worse...

I think the most important thing for feminists to address in the U.S. is the lack of publicity about feminism, the lack of knowledge about what feminism is (like the differences in say radical versus liberal) and the role of feminists in their community.

As feminists, we hold a very valuable key into unlocking our society. Most of us believe in compromising and unity as opposed to conquering and individual gains, and we should use this to address issues concerning our society.

To change our society we will have to unify and address all angles of our local, state and national communities. I think 3rd wave feminism will be in serious jeopardy if we don't first unite and face society together. Then again, we may even be past the 3rd wave and on to another feminist ideal. Maybe we are in the "Label Breaker Feminism" movement and should organize our womyn to address our society?

In my opinion, a single topic, like the war, is not what feminism needs to address; it is the education of womyn about feminism, the unity in the community and a well organized action plan to address as many blights of our society as possible. Also, we must follow through with our actions and not relax once we have gained what we deserve.

There are so many political issues at this time for feminists to tackle, especially under this administration. From the war to global warming, to lgbt rights to immigrant rights, feminists have alot of work to do. What are some of the concerns that you think are most pressing for U.S. feminists to tackle?