Welcome Linda Hirshman (Slate.com), and Host Todd Gitlin (ToddGitlin.net)

Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution, How a Despised Minority Pushed Back, Beat Death, Found Love, and Changed America for Everyone

Linda Hirshman has written a pungent history of how gay and lesbian Americans transformed themselves, in less than half a century, from a despised minority that dared not speak its name—or did so on pain of bashing in Greenwich Village, assassination in San Francisco, crucifixion in Laramie, Wyoming, snickers and agonized death everywhere—into the vigorous core of a new moral majority that occupied American culture (not without opposition), changed pharmaceutical testing, became an electoral bloc and spawned new specialties in wedding planning. Let’s not quibble about her title, Victory. All victories are incomplete. This is an amazing story.

The saga Hirshman tells consists largely of individual stories—comings out, breakouts, standouts, freakouts. Drama and melodrama: This is a reasonable choice she has made, and no small achievement, since she seeks to inspire readers as well as to get readers’ minds around a huge cultural upheaval. She does it with minimal attention to the usual blunt instruments of so-called social science and maximal attention to morality tales, to choice-points and collision-points where values were, as Nietzsche would say, transvalued. She gives a wide range of players their due.

The range is important, and so are the divergences. Like all social movements, the gay rights movement (GRM for short) has been, and continues to be, not only courageous but contentious. It’s American after all—polychromatic, unruly, and moralistic. Moralism grates. Audacity often comes with abrasiveness. Original individuals are, by definition, not like other people. And yet (surprise!) they’re people. They come from somewhere other than where they end up. They become. They have their jaggedness, their learning curves and precipices and tragedies.

How could a straight woman have written a book of such empathy and scope? She is—get ready!—an intellectual who can write. Hirshman has been a labor lawyer and a professor of philosophy and women’s studies, but the main thing is that she’s omni-curious, thoughtful, and tough-minded. One of her helpmeets, the historian Eric Marcus, says that only an outsider could have written this book, because she had no dogs in the many and various fights.

As an outsider too, I’m in no position to quarrel with her particular judgments, her inclusions and omissions. But I’m full of admiration not only for the movement but for its chronicler. I’m proud to call her my friend.


[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book and be respectful of dissenting opinions. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]

59 Responses to “FDL Book Salon Welcomes Linda Hirshman, Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution”

BevW June 10th, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Linda, Welcome to the Lake.

Todd, Welecome back to the Lake, thank you for Hosting today’s salon.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Linda, When did it occur to you that the gay rights movement was epoch-making?

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:00 pm

In 1987, when I heard Michael Sandel talk about the movement at a lecture about morality and social change. He used gay rights as an example of a movement that asked for approval and not just tolerance.

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Good afternoon Linda and Todd and welcome to FDL this afternoon.

Linda, I have not read your book so forgive me if you address this in there but did you find it difficult to find people willing to talk about their experiences? Did you find a diversity between the views of “average” LGBT individuals versus those representing the “professional” organizations (HRC/Courage Campaign/etc)?

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 3

As a technical note, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Pressing “Reply” pre-fills the commenter name and comment number being replied to and makes it easier for everyone to follow the conversation.

Note: Some browsers do not like to let the Reply function properly if pressed after a page refresh when the page has not completed loading.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:05 pm

thankfully, I met up with Eric Marcus early, and he started the chain of introductions. Then one person just eagerly sent me to many more.
The “civilians” I talked to had a diversity of views about everything, but so in many ways do the leaders (although they are no more contentious than the leaders of any other progressive movement). One difference, of course, is that the leaders were clear in their minds about the political implications of what they were doing. A lot of regular gay and lesbian folks are just living their lives as best they can, without having what we call “oppositional consciousness” to put around their experiences.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 5

oops sorry. about the technical thing. is this better?

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Might this be one crucial element in the definition of leadership? “Clear in their minds about the political implications of leadership”?

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 8

Yes (you’ll notice the difference as we get further along) :})

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 9

(As i screw up and reply to the wrong person) :}(

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 8

absolutely. Clear in their minds about the political implications of oppression, really. That’s the big necessary if not sufficient.
Some leaders arise charismatically or emotionally, so they don’t necessarily have to be, um, philosophers. But I never interviewed a leader of the movement who was not, at some level, absolutely clear about the political implications.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 8

Linda, may I elaborate? In the New Left and women’s movement, there were leaders who found it unbearable to lead. They were picked on, overlionized, celebrated, resented, and so on. So there was a tendency to abdicate leadership. Did you notice anything like that in the gay movement(s)?

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Linda, did you pick up on differences in leadership style between gay men & lesbians?

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 11

It has sometimes seemed though that the “leaders” were way behind the every day people and counseled moving much slower due to those “political implications.”

Marriage equality and many other areas, it seems the leaders were often far behind the folks they were nominally leading.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 12

That’s so interesting. Most of the crucial leadership stories involve people being essentially forced out.
A McCarthyite revolt ousted the visionary, but Communist tainted founder of the first real gay rights movement, Harry Hay, in 1953. But he resigned reluctantly after a ghastly meeting/revolt. They abdicated, but only realizing they simply could not withstand the McCarthyite scrutiny, oaths, etc., that their more conservative members were proposing.
In the weeks after Stonewall, the charismatic New Left leaders broke off from the establishment Mattachine society and wrested leadership away again. Dick Leitsch, who had been running things, says he was glad to be done.
But who knows how accurate that is.
There has been a lot of picking and resenting and ousting and resigning for sure. But the through line in the gay rights movement is of seeking and clinging to power, not abdicating. Interestingly, the radical lesbians broke up more as you describe, extreme democracy followed by sniping and abdication.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Re those who were fearful of political blowback from gay marriage demands– What did they want to do instead?

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 16

My understanding was they pretty much wanted to do nothing. Or maybe keep pushing for civil unions as a baby step.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 14

People who weren’t necessarily leaders wanted to marry for sure. Early cases, like 1971, involved very low level guys like Baker and McConnell, not the celebrities of Stonewall and the like. But for the most part, the marriage activists were movement activists. The first modern case, in Hawaii, came when a lesbian couldn’t leave her life insurance to her partner, but the idea of suing for marriage in Hawaii came from the radical leader of the local center. Evan Wolfson had written about it ten years before Hawaii, while he was still in law school in 1983, and he was very high up at the gay Lambda Legal by the time Hawaii came out.
It is true that the establishment institutions were not on board at that point — there was a big fight at Lambda (which Evan eventually won). But at each juncture, the pre-existing institution had incubated leaders who were just ready to rise up when new issues arose. Thus, Evan at Lambda. So it wasn’t entirely a town and gown thing.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 17

So they found out that, in the fight over where to go from there, you can beat something with nothing?

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 18

Re: “at each juncture, the pre-existing institution had incubated leaders who were just ready to rise up when new issues arose.” Can you say more about how that happened? Why did it work? Was it a matter of having “skin in the game”? Incubation of leaders is no small thing.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 17

it’s actually more interesting than that.
In 1991 or so when the Hawaii case came up, the gay institutions that would have been involved, like Lambda, were actually fighting for the continued embrace of the libertine sexuality that had erupted after Stonewall. So in some ways they were MORE radical than the radical civilians who were arguing for marriage.
Although there are always state groups that fear the backlash and want to go step by step, all the gay legal organizations had had an Appalachin type powwow in CA after Hawaii and planned a very strategic campaign for marriage, seeking friendly environments like MA. Which worked pretty well. They were trying to avoid Prop 8. Hah.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 20

Indeed it is not a small thing. Partly it was for want of anyplace else to go. From 1950 until Stonewall Mattachine was the only game in town. So when gays, often radicalized by the Sixties, were looking for some way to act politically Mattachine was their only option. In NY they did radicalize the existing Mattachine. It’s actually to the movement’s credit that they provided a place where new leaders could develop, even if the new leaders did eventually take over or break off. They had elections, the more radical slate won, they transferred power. it’s pretty admirable actually. Of course after Stonewall the change got too extreme to contain.
Lambda was divided. One of its two leaders pro and one contra marriage. AGain, when Wolfson got out of Harvard, Lambda was pretty much the only game in town.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 19

Whoops. I meant “you *can’t* beat something with nothing.

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 21

(Most of my knowledge comes from later times like following and supporting Prop 8 here at FDL – as a straight man, I didn’t fully understand the issue myself until I had it explained to me here)

Teddy Partridge June 10th, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Hi Linda, hello Todd –

Linda — I wish I’d had the time to delve deep into your book before today’s Book Salon. But I’ll start out with one question I know anyone else active in the LGBT movement might ask:

Victory? Really? ”

How much pushback have you gotten on your title? It’s triumphal and triumphant, but it seems way early.

Sure we’ve changed minds and moved numbers significantly in opinion polls — but in the polls that matter to many Americans, voting booth polling, we lose again and again. Notwithstanding that civil rights shouldn’t be voted on, we continue to seem despised or at least overlooked.

Can we really claim victory for this movement — not only for marriage, but for equal employment, equality in immigration, Social Security benefits, housing non-discrimination?

Have you found that being an outsider subjects you to extra criticism for choosing this title for your story?

Thanks for writing this book, for joining us today, and for taking my question. Happy Pride!

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:42 pm

And thank you for having me.
Victory means that, short of some catastrophic counterrevolution of fascistic putsch, the crucial line has been crossed and the progress on gay rights, however slow and incomplete, well, only spins forward as the playwright said. And Victory meaning the crucial line crossed means Victory, given how far you’ve come. Given that modest definition,
A lot of the pushback fell back after Obama declared, the First Circuit ruled and the Ninth Circuit ruled all in the three week run up to the book release!
I have gotten criticism for being an outsider (the “chutzpah” of it) but not for calling it Victory.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:44 pm

oh, darn, I cannot seem to remember the reply thing.
But as to being an “outsider” one critic said I was uncharacteristically humble, considering my usual obnoxious behavior, she speculated, perhaps fearing what the gay community would do to me.
This is so wrong. First, as the Eric Marcus experience reflects, the community could not have been more supportive and welcoming, which is why it has had such victory. Recognizing an ally . . .
Second, this is a great American movement. So I’m not an outsider.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 2:47 pm

The NYT yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/nyregion/black-leaders-and-gay-advocates-find-ways-to-march-in-step.html) features growing collaboration between the gay and black movements. How big a deal is this?

BevW June 10th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

Linda, did you notice a generational divide in your interviews, who was more “active” in protests and actions – versus an older generation that has accepted their situation?

Phoenix Woman June 10th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

Hello, Linda! Welcome to the Lake.

Linda, I notice that you mentioned the DNC’s firing of Donald Hitchcock, which was being pushed by Hitchcock and his friends at the Washington Blade as an anti-gay move. Yet he was replaced by another gay man, Brian Bond, ifI recall correctly. Is there anything more on that story?

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 28

I think it’s a great example of the possible payoff of alliance politics (as opposed to the dreaded intersectionality).
The gay revolution got to the point where they were important enough to be an attractive partner.
They were accepted enough so that the atrocious “you can’t compare your movement to our” from the black movement started to look like ugly homophobia. Remember it was the execrable Colin Powell, first African American chief of staff of the Armed Services, who drove the stake into integrating gays in the military in 1993. If he had taken a different position, the whole story might have come out differently. When gay rights got mainstream enough, fancy that, Colin Powell changed his mind.
That said, the CA NAACP was on board fighting prop 8 years ago, and Julian Bond has been a real voice for alliance for a long time. So the picture was not as, um, black and white as the article indicates. I think the NAACP was in the cards even before Obama spoke. But he did a Good Thing, no question. Finally.
I thought the examples in the article were stupid and inadequate. If the problem is African Americans, then cooperation with some Hispanic, as the article recites, is a little off the point.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
In response to Phoenix Woman @ 30

I did not think it was antigay.
I think it was to punish Paul Yandura, Hitchock’s partner, who was fragging them mercilessly for not doing more to fight for marriage and the like.
Now the inadequate support for the cause can be construed as antigay, right? Not homophobic, just not there for the movement when they needed the Democrats. when Yandura started to scream and yell about it they fired his partner. Not surprising, but ugly.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
In response to Phoenix Woman @ 30

Yandura is sort of an interesting example of the phenomenon of the outsider who was really an insider until the moment came, not just some random civilian from the streets. Just like the leaders of the Gay Liberation Front had mostly been “incubated” in the Mattachine.

dakine01 June 10th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 24

Supporting as in supporting marriage equality, not the H8ers

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 34

of course. we know what you meant.
I think the eruption after Prop 8 again involved people who were incubated in the movement. When they saw they were clearly in trouble in October, they called in Chad Griffin, who then became a leader of the “insurgency” as it was portrayed after Prop 8. Now Robin McGehee and the Get Equal folks were more like up from the street. But even there, the great march which was her high point (so far) was started by David Mixner, old movement hand, and the legendary Cleve Jones.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Linda, On a different front: Do you think the American LGBT movement has been more successful than equivalent movements elsewhere? And if so–this is my superficial impression–why?

BevW June 10th, 2012 at 3:18 pm

In a contrast between Feminism and the Gay Movement – didn’t feminism take a leap forward in the late 60s with the generational protests? and didn’t the Gay Movement “mature” quickly during the 80′s when Aids hit the community so hard? Your thoughts?

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 36

I do think that in many ways it was more successful. Not than abolitionism or the French Revolution. But compared to the other two 20th century civil rights movements. Because it was burdened with a charge of fundamental badness: sinful, crazy, disloyal and criminal per se. It was never criminal per se to be a woman, not even an uppity woman, or a black person, after 1863. Colin Powell explained his opposition to gays in the military against the charge that his arguments would have kept HIM out by saying that gays suffered from a disorder in the most fundamental of human characteristics. So the gay revolution could not merely ask people to look at the content of their character (which was hard enough of course). They had to change peoples’ opinions about what constituted bad character. which is really so hard.
And they had no historical jet fuel. No exodus story, no Joan of Arc.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
In response to BevW @ 37

My impression: Feminism was bifurcated from the start, between the NOW elders (more or less) and the New Left daughters. Something comparable could be seen among gays. These generational tensions are more the norm than not.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 38

But on the question of American exceptionalism: Isn’t the US, now one of the most unequal of rich societies with respect to wealth and income, also the most hospitable to rights affirmations? Is this not an element in our *weirdness*?

Phoenix Woman June 10th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 33

That was what was fascinating — one could argue whether or not it was right for the DNC to do their reorg the way that they did, and one can wonder about the timing, but that’s about the only evidence of retaliatory firing that could be seen, if I recall correctly. And as it turns out, Brian Bond was not only gay, but an experienced fundraiser, and fundraising was a key part of that DNC outreach position. (I’m glad to see that regardless of what Yandura and Hitchcock think of Dean or the DNC, they weren’t holding grudges against Brian Bond, as a picture (scroll down) from the May 2006 NGLTF Dinner indicates that they seem to have got along just fine.)

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
In response to BevW @ 37

Everybody benefitted from the Sixties!! (Right, Todd?) Including the gay revolution, which was bursting out all over starting as early as 1964 in California.
There were demographic changes that fractured the elite and empowered the upstarts. We have not seen anything like it since.
AIDS changed the movement of course, forced people out, flooded money in. But many forces were already in motion when AIDS hit. there is a good argument that AIDS was a hideous diversion from a dynamic that would have reached the same place by 1997 if it had been allowed to make slow, steady progress. Remember the gay rights movement came within one vote of winning the criminal sodomy issue in 1986, a year before ACT UP and well before the real impact of the AIDS movement. It’s like thinking about what would have happened to SDS if there had been no Vietnam war. Todd told me it might have had a soft landing, and that’s what I think might have happened to the gay revolution if there had been no AIDS. AIDS was a big factor. But at what a huge price.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
In response to Phoenix Woman @ 41

I don’t think this is important enough to deconstruct further. It’s just part of the successful move to hold the Democrats accountable, which the gay community did brilliantly once they turned to it..

Mauimom June 10th, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Hi Teddy,

One observation I’d like to make, although it’s not “victory,” is the extreme interest and involvement of “young folks.”

My daughter is 26 [straight]. For her and ALL of her friends, gay rights is THE issue, kind of like the environment was back in the 70s. She’s in DC and has just volunteered to work on both the individual campaign of the guy who introduced the civil unions bill in the MD legislature and the “issue campaign” of those trying to keep a referendum that would repeal the civil unions bill OFF the November ballot. She’s contacting & organizing her friends to do the same.

She has gay friends, straight friends, bi-friends. They are all interested in how they can fight to improve gay rights.

So, at least in my mind, a small glimmer of hope. Not a “victory,” but more troops for a fighting chance.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 39

hmmm. Do you mean Mattachine/NOW and Gay Liberation Front/Redstockings?

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 45

More or less.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 40

this is the terrible curse of seeing justice separate from distributive justice. Heck, it’s not even Hobbesian good sense to have this degree of inequality. I am thrilled for the “Victory” of the gay revolution, but the most important thing my readers can take away is the lessons they can learn for any progressive movement. Clearly, the inequality is the most exigent problem by far. If only Occupy Wall Street were ACT UP.

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
In response to Mauimom @ 44

Kirsten Gillibrand called it the civil rights march of HER generation.
But I don’t think it’s just more troops. I think it’s over. It’s just a matter of time. The demographics you describe should help liberal causes in general, not just this one. So unless the youthful idealists embrace possessive individualism and refuse to address the inequality, in time, that too should get better. If our society has the time, of course. Hobbes would be very worried.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:35 pm

For some reason my response to 45 got sent back– My answer was “more or less.”

As for 46, ACT UP had a very concrete demand. OWS in Phase 1 disdained such focus. That’s one reason it’s stalled. There’s much effort now, in various quarters of OWS, to put together demands & stick to them over a period of years. If that effort fails, OWS’s bubble pops.

Phoenix Woman June 10th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 43

It’s important because it was being pushed by various people as being evidence that the very first governor to sign a pro-civil-unions bill — the first key step towards marriage equality — was either antigay and/or not doing enough for gays.

But I’ll drop it now. :-)

bgrothus June 10th, 2012 at 3:39 pm

I’m a bit curious about the big LGBT event at the White House next weekend. I am so disenchanted with the WH and the Democrats these days, but I guess if I got invited to the WH, I would go. What is your sense of the relationship between LGBT and the WH now?

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 49

OK. I think NOW was a lot more radical in context than Mattachine. Mattachine was still a VERY conventional fifties type NAACP type place. NOW dropped its homophobia at the second Congress to Unite Women, very quickly after it was founded and in the social context of the early 60′s NOW was pretty radical — equal rights amendment, abortion, how quickly we forget : )
Redstockings was really trying to reconstruct the fundamental relationships of gender, hugely radical (I love that in a movement), which is probably why it failed, and why its failure is such a tragedy. Even the GLF was more conventional than that — rallies around the Village Voice to get it to use the word gay, dances, demonstrations at the psychiatrists’ convention. It seemed radical, but it was pretty standard Sixties stuff in 1970, no?
so the whole feminist continuum went more radical before it sputtered out. Interesting to consider why. Maybe the gay revolution benefitted from taking it step by step.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 52

In other words, the revolutionary vibe of the ’60s was still reverberating through feminism for years. Could it be that the gay movement spent relatively more time trying to realize sexual revolution “in private”–doing-it-themselves–than in institutional change?

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
In response to bgrothus @ 51

good question.
Well, the worst impediment is now removed, right? Although Barack Obama was not a profile in courage to the people i interviewed before the Final Evolution. And as I learned in doing the book (there’s a wonderful story about the straight woman psychologist who started the challenging the crazy business) if there’s one thing the movement is good at, it’s rewarding its allies, however late to the war. And finally the new guys on the block at HRC and GLAAD are brilliantly smooth operators, as I describe in the book. So they are going to harvest the social capital of being at the WH to the hilt.

bgrothus June 10th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 54

Social captial, what about anything political, or will it be just a wonderful moment to sing Kumbaya?

BevW June 10th, 2012 at 3:53 pm

As we come to the end of this Book Salon discussion,

Linda, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the Victory of Gay Revolution.

Todd, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you would like more information:

Linda’s website/posts and book

Todd’s website (ToddGitlin.net) and new book (Occupy Nation: The Roots, the Spirit, and the Promise of Occupy Wall Street)

Thanks all, Have a great week.

If you would like to contact the FDL Book Salon: FiredoglakeBookSalon@gmail.com

Linda Hirshman June 10th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
In response to Todd Gitlin @ 53

Two things were happening at once in the gay revolution.
They were acting on their new found freedom in sexual libertinism, dances, legit bars, baths, the whole Larry Kramer novel thing. At the same time, a cadre of political operatives were trying to change the political institutions — lawsuits, proposed anti discrimination ordinances, etc.
women did not have that luxury. No matter how many equality decisions and laws they got, the fundamental political problem was at home. Completely unlike the gay revolution. Casey Hayden named it. But they never changed it.

Todd Gitlin June 10th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 57

This is such a big thought it’s going to take me a while to wrap my head around it.

Thanks to one and all!

bgrothus June 10th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
In response to Linda Hirshman @ 57

Well said. Thank you.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post