message and tell you what it means to us as we move towards smaller and more capable and ready for us, we have to be careful to protect our missions and execute this enduring contribution to mention before.

handling those conflicts. this is just over one hour and was filmed at princeton university. >> thank you very much. it is lovely to be back here at princeton on this beautiful fall day. i would also like to say a special thank you to the people of the international office of the united nations. and also their admission of forward thinking and imaginative engagement. it has been ongoing since 1825 and has been sponsored and launched, the rest of which is

wonderful. i was approached to take part in the series and i tried to think what i have to offer. this morning we had a discussion on 1325. if you don't know it, learn it. some people think it is a parking ticket or something. [laughter] well done. we love blackboards. it is one of the real problems. is that most americans, even

though we are very committed to the united nations being an effective vehicle for international peace, even those americans really don't know about this groundbreaking and historic resolution. every single member to take account of and try to prevent wartime and militarized violence against women and also radicalization, and radical can be good. the second part of 1325 is to commit every government member of the united states and every agency in the united nations to ensure that women have an effective voice. not somebody's wife, actually

someone who comes out of grassroots organizations and those who have activity and implementation of peace building and he seeking in the postwar era. in some ways, that is a difficult to take seriously as it is violence against women and the prevention of it. the prevention of it -- we know this on many campuses on the united states as well. but it least it kind of fits the sexist notion that women need protection. is that right? i mean, that is one of the problems of it. that women need protection, oh, yes, right? it kind of fits the worldview if

you think of women as those who need protection, women are the vulnerable ones. but that kind of view, it doesn't mean it isn't much more difficult than that women are thinkers and strategists and a half grassroots organizations and constituencies and as such, they need to be hammering out cord and be there in the constitutional assembly in the constitution that often comes as part of the new police forces. sometimes called security sector

reform. it means police forces. it means the building and training in mandating of the police forces and they need to be part of a new judiciary. they need to be everywhere. that part of 1325 is in fact much more of the current status quo. so whenever we listen to people talking to someone if we do here, make sure you don't let them stop protection talk. it doesn't mean they will take responsibility for providing that or engage in the perpetration of sexual violence, but it does leave them their comfortable comfortable worldview, meaning that they

think that we are the vulnerable ones. don't let them get away with that. one of the reasons they have set off so much new research and activism, work that is being shared between activists and people of various countries as well as women of working groups, one of the reasons it is valuable is it is part of this thing called postwar. i promise i won't spend too much time at the blackboard, but i do love the blackboard. we don't know very much about it, to tell you that your. even though there are so many memoirs and books and documentary films we still don't know how much women experience these wars.

the congo war, world war ii, it's amazing what we still don't know about world war ii, by the way. we still don't know a lot. but we definitely don't know about prewar. sometimes you don't know about that until you are in order. sometimes until the war breaks out, we don't really know. what we are now learning from many scholars in many countries, there's been trickett worked about japanese women in the 1930s, for instance. many japanese scholars who are doing innovative work about women in the 1930s. japan's prewar.

what we are learning from scholars all over the world is that the prewar time is the time of an attempt to position women as wives and mothers and daughters, is that they will see their own contribution to their families and their contribution to society in terms of supporting wartime effort. it's the definition of who is the patriotic mother and the dutiful daughter. who is the good life. the idea that the good wife is the one who does his military duty and the woman stands by him as he does it.

okay? that kind of work which happens in the media and government, that happens in the prewar time. for any of you that are interested in historical research, to look at the violence. that means you always have to ask about women in different social classes and different countries about women in different ethnic groups and racialized groups and those who treat women who as if they are monolithic. but they have been pressured to take on these ideas of the beautiful daughter and the good wife and a patriotic mother. it's interesting from what we know from a number of societies.

so that if you look at the outbreak of the war in 1991 and 1992 ,-com,-com ma one of the things that would strike you as the number of woman who said that they would resist being the good mother by encouraging their sons to become an increasingly chauvinistic agenda. so it doesn't mean that exactly, who felt complimented. who fell for the first time that they were a part of something bigger than the one just domestic creatures by being asked to be the supportive wife or the beautiful daughter.

these things are quite profound for american women and that is why militarization can be difficult, even if women have no desire to take up a weapon or two be on the front lines and become militarized. the militarization happens to a lot of good people and happens if you take all the people in the world who are militarized, and the majority of the people who are militarized our civilians. we are militarized insofar values and certain beliefs about whether hierarchy is the best way to organize or whether it is about mending the protectors and

women being the grateful protected. and militarization happens in so far as you can adopt the worldview is. increasingly, as we adopt all of those worldviews, including the violence and actually the resolving the problems. having said that, what we are working on now is a matter that is called postwar. this is where 1325 comes from. and what we are now realizing is

the work that is going on here at the center. we now realize is that postwar is defined by warner. postwar is any error that can last a short time for a long time. it is when we organize the understanding of ourselves and our relationship with others in our relationship with the political system. as referenced. 1325 is something that makes it so his store. it is a resolution of the creation of a new kind of

postwar. it is 1325 amongst many other things an attempt -- an international attempt to change the relationship between women and men and political systems in this thing called postwar so the postwar will really end and become peacetime. this one doesn't change the masculinity and femininity and what are the criteria for being a respectable woman. this one doesn't change those things. some weapons might even be handed in.

various militias could even be immobilized. but the ideas of the respectable woman are not profoundly changed and you have less in place on the makings of remilitarization. because it depends on ideas about manliness and the good woman and those are left in place, then the postwar doesn't feel like it's part of that piece. try to get a lot of people who take things seriously is not easy. i'm sure a lot of you have

tried. maybe you have tried to with your roommates for coworkers. people take seriously gender analysis and they either think that you are some, you know, some kind of major. i went to the university of california at berkeley which was supposedly very radical when i was there. i actually didn't become a feminist until the mid-70s. what i now realize is that i kind of liked them. i'm not embarrassed by them.

but when i look at them now and i am a bit embarrassed because i think that they are naïve. for i was pushed to do with gender analysis of the things that i said i was interested in, i am interested in the rules that they play in our lives. and i was interested in all of that. i try to understand each of those things. i try to understand military institutions without gender analysis. but it can end up being unreliable. one of the things that happen to

me if i was pushed by friends and students to become feminist in my questioning, i think that i actually got smarter. meaning that i became more realistic by asking gender questions. it means you should be able to have a gender analysis of c-span or princeton or any of the clubs were situations in any workplaces that you have worked then. you should be able to do that of anything, including knowing how

to start doing a gender analysis of hurricane sandy. because that was a major disaster in the way that avoided a major disaster for a lot of people in new jersey and queens and manhattan. start at home. ask questions. if you have the chance to do a gender analysis of hurricane sandy that hit the american east coast, what questions would you ask? gender analysis is a useful skill. skill that makes you more realistic. when we start talking about

postwar, what does that mean? is about how to get women more involved in the implementation of what missions are obligated to do and how you go about doing that. this was a study done by a german ngo who had really put a lot of good effort into radio programming. they realized that there is a high level of illiteracy among women but they also realize

there is a gap between men and women in literacy. whenever you look at any data, don't trust any data that isn't general neutral driven. they experience all kinds of things the same way. there are mothers and fathers and this is not good or bad or a hierarchy. it is realistic about how people live their lives are in so this very good german ngo was conscious of the high-level of

literacy and illiteracy and they have done some gender analysis. not enough, but they had done some, and they realized that radio would be very crucial for women since they are illiteracy is even higher in those areas. they have also put effort behind programming. they created programs about family law and they wanted to help people have access to this information not by the printed word but by radio. so those are the three levels of

gender analysis and they put them out so they reached to remote villages in afghanistan. then they began to see that women in the rule areas had no idea that these programs had been put out in several languages. they were hearing that women in the rural areas actually had no knowledge of that and had never heard of the program. it was something that they put so much effort into. but the good thing is they got serious. they also got curious. so they did what they should have done at the start.

they stayed around, they watch, they listened. and what they realized was the genuine radio in households was important. but it is one of the prized possessions in a household that doesn't have very much materially. so who gets control of that as a prized possession? it is the person who is considered most important in the household, which was considered to be the adult in the household. it was turned on when the man in

the household had a program that he thought was important to listen to and then the radio was taken down. only he and his male friends in the neighborhood gathered around to listen. if the women listened at all, they were supposed to be doing other chores and if they hurt anything, it was by eavesdropping. most of the radio programs that the man wanted to listen to had nothing to do with women's rights were women's involvement in politics. now, why this is such a good

story to remember is to remind us that being a gender analysis is not enough. what are the dynamics at the micro level. the micro level can be this ngo or it will household. you have to be very curious about the relationship between men and women and ideas about the nationalization of importance and information and the most prized possessions in the house. they didn't stick around and write up the findings. but it was a very good wake-up call, i thought, that you can't

just say we take this seriously, both the protection of women and the involvement of women in a very serious fashion. you can do that unless you are gender curious. which means you have to devote time, which most of us do not have a lot of and resources which are always scarce due gender analysis. even well-meaning efforts to shape the postwar. that is about the efforts in recent months to try and get gender dynamics taken seriously.

and what the gender and analysis have found is that people who are doing small arms and light weapons -- and that is the general term, they are well-meaning and they know that the wider circulation of guns are more likely not to come. and that a new conflict could break out. with all of that, good commitment and insight and most don't believe that gender has anything to do with them. that is that owning a gun and possessing a gun has anything to

do with manliness. but it's all in the mind. that it's not about anatomy. it is other people's perception of you and your perception of yourself. and we know that young men who are teenagers and into militias and were handed guns and grew into manhood, if you will, with the notion they were standing in society, they had to be taken seriously because they had a gun. why would a young man who has no chance for paid employment, why would he, at the age of 20 or 21, give him the one thing that would give him status?

how can you possibly have an effective campaign to get men to hand in their guns? if you think you can have a campaign and not seriously think about manliness, and also its perception, you are on a losing cause. the second thing is limiting the number of guns in a postwar society and how they don't want to include women. because they have said and they have organized around this and

have persuaded the government to some extent it's women who often times the weight of guns are. they are some of the best sources of where are the guns hidden? guns are not always about that. a lot of women know where the guns are in their household. if you don't include them as strategists, what you are doing is the whole lack of knowledge and what kind of campaign is

that so that gender analysis matters so that you can have an effective postwar resolution so that the postwar can turn into peacetime. insofar as you do not ask serious questions. which means you must have the resources to ask the questions and you have to know how to get organization to help you implement the question. we are going to leave ourselves working very hard and we will have to deprive ourselves to

make this shorter rather than longer. right now, as many of you know, there is an effort in the midst of a rampantly escalating military conflict in syria. in the middle of the war is won this thing called the postwar is being created. so you cannot wait to start doing postwar analysis. oftentimes it is decided will be the main players and decision-makers in the postwar. in the capital of qatar, doha, there was a decision made to

create a new and hopefully legitimate syrian national coalition which has been referred to not just as a national coalition of opposition of the bush -- excuse me, bashar al-assad government, that will be ready to take over the government of syria in the place of the postwar. in the middle of war is a creation of the postwar. that's what is happening in delhi. so how many women were elected?

is not just the qatar government making decisions. although the united states government taking a very active part in the putting heads together and creating a legitimate election that could allow the provisional government takeover. i think there are 40 members of the new coalition. you know, there are like 6 feet. and this is every government that has taken part.

it is a very formal process. .. what was going on the air mines? i can assure you every person that took part in the story about it, diplomatic processes in doha, i can guarantee you all

of them would be able to view shook their shoulder to say kind words about 1325 because it's their job. so the real question is for all of that is, how did they manage to so marginalize, it are, take no account of women in the midst of the most serious right now armed conflict that is engaging so many governments? i don't have the answer to that, but what i do know is we better understand how it even works. it not just about denying both to 1325. they probably also did 1325. lipservice is a very interesting thing to study. and we have that work now a blatant example of saint

lipservice to a major u.n. was aleutian that they are obligated to abide by and many of them voted for and yet, without seeing any embarrassment to help negotiate a process that shut women not to room. so i am going to and at that point and we can have a good conversation. yes, please stand. [inaudible] >> we need mics. there you go. jump ahead here. >> i work for a women's international league for peace and freedom and cynthia has been a long-time member and influencer of our work. for almost 98 years old of a women's peace organization that

was started of women that came together to add world war i. you might know jane addams and our comrade, but it has continued in the work continues not only at an international level, but a local level. our colleagues in congo, for example, i was thinking of them when you were speaking, cynthia, because they always say where we was talking about sexual island, but when i come to the u.s., nobody satisfies the u.s. government continuing to sell arms in the eastern drc. these are critical to 1325 and why our organization was one of the key organizations that pushed for a feminist resolution. a revolution of the antiwar, not the phrase making were safe or women and it becomes a key tool for colleagues working in the middle of conflict situations, whether in palestine with the

drc and the u. s., at the race are using 1325 to say this is not about instruments wising women in foreign policy. it's not about saving women in afghanistan. it's about looking on around policies in terms to thinking about how does the u.s. itself militarize their own security? lessees 1325 to redefine security. cynthia has influenced so much our work and how we organize and advocate for 1325 to be a holistic tool. so many things came to my mind because whenever court challenges is talking about disarmament, cynthia appeared this is something that often gets left off the agenda homer so grateful to you incorporating it into your work is how we can ask questions about arms and feminism in the same paragraph because in the u.n., that's a difficult thing to do and become

so critical that we prayed these silences and that's why civil society working with academia and member states really can show the way forward and this is one of the motivations for this series. we have about 30 minutes and we want to open the floor for interaction with you all. we just want to remind everyone that we are using a microphone because of the video and please introduce yourself before your remarks. >> i would like to first about thank you very much for the presentation. [inaudible] but i wanted to ask you specific

the congo where is the role of religion? worries the role of religion can turn into role of women in society, the standing of women and public officials and how do you square that connection with regard to a generational issue? i would like to help to clarify something although i haven't been -- and this just in a meeting. the meeting took place the majority of the time amongst the various groups in syria and the facilitating states really kept

outside. i am painfully aware of the point you raised in an addition if i can say comes through much am i. but i have to be honest, in a situation where we have continuing destruction and we are running neck and a time factor, and even discerning the change of the winter coming into syria. do you grasp any straw you can get to bring about peace. but it can, that does not excuse that there are not more women involved. so my question concerns the role of women and religion. >> rate, thank you very much. a second one and then i'll try.

>> thoughts or stories. >> on the second year at the woodrow wilson school, one of the sunny women's studies majors in mentioned earlier. >> start finance majors. >> there is a lot of attention on the large number of racist female soldiers in the military. there's a very interesting case of gender and military collating ideals. just wanted your thoughts on why attention is placed on this issue now on what has happened. >> i'd be happy to talk about those. let me talk about the little i know. i'm definitely not an expert on religion and how to think about religion gender analysis, women and security.

and that is not every religion is monolithic, but every expression of religion is usually woven through with ideas about what a good woman has and but the good woman should be. and then you watch women in any religion try to navigate that. for a lot of women, even though religious organizations are selling it last our highly picture of and that's virtually tour about religion in the world, prominent religion in the rotation site, establish religion in the world. that doesn't mean for a lot of women that their religious participation and whatever is their local church, synagogue or temple or a doesn't give them a sense of security and often

times, really than male leadership of those organizations are perfectly aware that women's sense of security coming from a particular faith in the process of the faith is one other thing sustaining the the religious organization. it has put many religious organizations in conflict with each other because on the one hand, they absolutely depend on women as participants. who turns out that the temple, who turns out that the church, who turns up at the synagogue? at the same time as religious organization has been loads to allow women to wield influence in that religious organization. if you listen to indian feminists talk about nationalism , you will hear a lot of these concerns. if you listen to african

american women talk about churches in the united states, you'll hear concerns. you will hear concerns from sisters in islam, a really wonderful group in malaysia talking how to reinterpret the koran so women's integrity is more full-fledged. so it's not really an answer to your question, but it does mean we have a much bigger agenda that if we take religion seriously is to watch a women engage with religion, both state and has organized process and what kind of gender analysis, what the gender analysis show you about the part is of a particular religion in particular places. i know from a serbian feminist friends that there is an enormous alarm now in the

reassertion of the serbian orthodox christian church in serbian political life. there is also a lot of of armed amongst russian feminists about the closeness of the putin government to the russian orthodox church now. so you have to watch over time. you have to listen seriously to feminists in any country before you make a function. you have to be curious about how women live their religious lives or nonreligious lives and you have to take seriously gender dynamics within a religious organization. the extent to which any church legitimizes militarism is always the question to ask, always a question to ask. there will be debates of that religious tradition about there will be debates of that religious tradition about

relationship of that religion on a tourism. so listen to debates as well. your comment reminded us of the importance -- the importance of asking questions about the u.s. military's own internal sexual assault history is crucial at this point. he talked about why is it only now an issue? the women i know who are lawyers and social workers for the most part, who tried to create a support network so women who stayed silent inside the military. i do often if you had experience inside military, the military is barred very, very highly hierarchical and most reporting about anything about racism or

sexism or assaults must go through what is called the chain of command, which is really deadening on any sense of empowerment or protect goodness when you're making a complaint, especially one against a fellow soldier and sometimes it is the commanding officer who is the perpetrator. so there has been enough for her to try and make this into an issue now for at least eight years. what is interesting is to watch how hard it has been to make the sexual assault of american soldiers and american female soldiers and issue. i'll try not to do politics 101 here, but we use the term issue a lot now, but we should be reminded it's a very particular thing. it has taken a phenomenon in making a problematic.

so today, this is not to embarrass anybody to match. today -- maybe it is here -- it's not too problematic to have brought a plastic water bottle to this event. but there a lot of people were trying to make us embarrassed about this, aren't there? using all this plastic carrier groundwater. so what is hard to make something people take for granted into something problematic. the second thing about something becoming an issue as it has to be not only problematic, it has to be accepted as some thing that requires a public solution. people might think certain things are problematic, but they don't want to make some and that's a public responsibility to solve. making male soldiers sexual

assault female soldiers in the u.s. military in every language is the equivalent of voice will be boys. so to say that it's not just from all, not just natural, not just inevitable, it is problematic. then the thing is to get it to the level where it's not just some pain that every woman should do with yourself. and that's the usual response that most commanders give most women who come to them, saying i was just assaulted in the barracks are at the latrine. that has been very hard to do to get it to be a public issue. it's true some members of the u.s. congress have been persuaded now that it is a public issue and that's what's new. so you have to get both those things in place. it's taken about eight years.

people don't want to hear it. if you think the main people who should hold the flag at their local high school football game should be members of the military are members of the junior rotc, that makes it really hard for questions about sexual assault of soldiers has soldiers. there's resistance in american culture for c. not all men by any means, but any man wearing the country's uniform being sexual perpetrators. it's really hard. the fact we've gotten this far has a lot to do with the organized the employment did this have been doing and how they have very sadly tried to find members of congress who will take it seriously. that is taken a lot of time. the film you've heard about, but it's worth watching as the

invisible water and is on dvd now. they came out about two years ago. it does shows you how women themselves have experienced sexual assault, but also talks about the thing we know shapes postwar and that is silent. why is that women feel it is so much a part of their minimal security not to talk about what happened and time and again, you have found the pentagon unwilling to change the chain of command so complaints can be made. one of the things lampkin nana has done a secretary defenses persuade her to be there watching invisible warrior, which is made that the base and he has for the first time ever said that a woman making a complaint of sexual assault does not have to go to her immediate

superior in her unit. that might open the floodgates to a reality check, but it is likely to mean more women will feel somewhat less insecure about making the charges. also there are very, very few convictions and women in military know this. significant okay, the main thing is get out. the main thing is not randomized. get it out and put it behind me. any other thoughts? yeah, hi. >> allison, an mp at the woodrow wilson center here. i have come here from a few years of work on development, primarily in countries where women are just not participating in the public sphere at all. so first in the coming of this work, i think i have two

different sermons engaging. i come back from a very value that a professor country and perspective being a woman, so it's hard to engage in the first phase of secondly i'm not sure about the role international development should or can play to change those dynamics. so it shouldn't necessarily be imposed from the outside. if we move beyond those two major dilemmas. my question for you i think is how can international development actually kickstart the role of women in the public sphere in some of these countries? thinking about afghanistan and jordan, beyond the token participation or whatever when they've traditionally been marginalized and not have any meaning overall in society? >> that's a big question. one of the good news things

they've than i think a lot by people who do this thing called international development work now actually asked that question. you know this. it's such a big step when people ask the question they never thought they used to have to ask you that doesn't sound like a big breakthrough, but it's actually a huge breakthrough. i think a lot of people and doing development work now -- there are a lot by people that are what i would call feminists informed. that is; so say feminists, might not. but baghdad any day mean they not only ask gender questions, questions about masculinity, femininity. they ask about power and that is for me what it means going beyond gender analysis to feminist analysis is he not only ask about masculinity of plants evidence that play, you ask what

it does to power, the possession of it, wielding of it. and a lot of development work, it used to be that nobody asked questions about power. he worked with a lot of people who seldom asked questions about power, but there's a lot by people asking questions. the other thing going on and you just mentioned jordan and afghanistan is that they are his women's organizing going on in countries where it may be the hardest working eyes and a vast international development work that i know of works with women's groups and does that mean that every women's group, you know, the angels. no american women's group is full of angels. but it does mean there is some authenticity they are consuming a collaboration rather than as you say, the end port model,

which positions us as if we have no problems of sexual assault in our military. the problem with the import model as it makes letter so we don't ask enough questions about how is a work and why only five or send about construction workers in the united states are women. so i think working with local groups is really crucial and learning from them. not just finding none and kicking it to legitimacy, but rather the sending and be educated by them to change the ways of operating. decaffeinated road is we can't see the end of the road in terms of this kind of work. hopefully more and more, women from outside affluent countries will be drivers of development.

the drivers and farmers of international develop. but it means that within every ngo for agency to an international development work, someone should do a gender analysis of the organized nation. where are the men in the organization? where are the women? who has influence in that organization? who could the technical expertise and that organization or my bottom line because i've been taught by a lot of people to do this work is who gets the landover? so the only way to do gender informed development work is to be gender curious about the group you are working with were in. not a total and fair, but i'm just on the train with you. [inaudible] >> great. >> i have been following the

organization, the women's international league for 20 years. >> excellent. >> in chicago. [inaudible] i immediately wanted to join the league. is there interest it because i'm coming from eastern europe and in the years when they didn't have the qualities, but now we do. i was very interested in that organization is so weak. and my point to your is that in the last 10 years, there is no progress because the baby boomers, the fighters, the activists after a certain age, rh lost ground. all these changes and that's my

issue. i look at campuses. i even gave to choosing the president. there's no act to this in the campuses and that the problem of these countries. so my question to you as you are a professor and an act to this, but what is concrete terms to stir up. maybe things will change, -- >> thank you very much. that's a very good week of. [inaudible] >> hi, i'm briand. i am an undergrad in my senior year at princeton and had the opportunity to intern, so it's very cool. >> that's how the new generation is being built. >> i wanted to bring up an

organization that i thought was pertinent to both talking about the crisis in syria and additionally, kind of the idea of postwar transitional justice developed during wartime. there's an organization called women under siege syria and its the women's media center and they are documenting -- >> say out and so we really hear it. >> its project of women's media center anna scott syrian women under siege. what they are doing is documenting instances of sexual and gender-based violence occurring in syria, specifically using crowd sourced elegy, so all of these are categorized by decree of assault and by location and also santan through anonymous e-mail, twitter feed, so really it's this tremendous harnessing of new technology to both give a voice to the victims in the sense that it began dealing with not just the idea

that imitation, but the idea of an agency more survivors and also to provide an opportunity for postwar transitional justice system of the first cases of systematic recent conflict, where it's documented in the moment. so i thought, it kind of brings up an interesting point of how can we use technology, how come you saw these resources we take for granted for march under discussion are gender is quite >> rhianna, that's wonderful and i speak to the first question because sometimes, you know, with each new generation, you find your own ways to be active and it may not be totally visible to a generation that isn't used to that kind of act is an. so a lot of the act of assembly are seeing in a few of the emerging generation of act this

is invisible to people, for instance, who are familiar with crowd sourcing or twitter. one of the things to do is make sure that is put out another media so people of other generations can see it. one of the things for people who aren't used to that technology this kind of open our eyes and look for other kinds of act as an rather than imagining act to this and i was most prevalent in our generation is the activism that is most effective for meaningful to this generation. thank you all very much. [applause] >> on behalf of the cosponsors, i want to sincerely thank cynthia for opening our eyes and opening the conversation here with a new group of women to

this and feminist activist that can be both men and women. it started as also talking about the interconnection between militarism, feminism, equality, development, technology and all the questions that have been raised have shown for the gap site or the need to continue working. this is really the start of the series where we want to open the conversation. cynthia, you've done that that and a wonderful and exciting way for us. it's good for us to get outside the u.n. bubble where we talk an acronym and to also ask about for a burn about asking questions. and that's what i'm going to take away from the lecture today. what are the questions we're asking? fire the important and who are we asking them to? i hope all of us can think about what is the gender analysis we're going to do? cynthia davis the challenge.

we can take it in our own organizations, studies, thanksgiving dinner next week and really take forward some of which you've heard today, whether it's joining of women's organization, reading cynthia's books are getting involved in that this and campaigned like the 16 days, which is happening the 25th of this month in the famous militarism, challenging militarism from the home to rid the world so you can take earning communities, tweet from your computers bircher and organization doing local activism in the u.s. i want to sincerely thank our pa