Very good thoughts on the subject - made me think more about "labels" - My preference is "underserved population".  My reason is that populations are different, in different locations.  Underserved populations can be defined, and is a rather neutral term, I think.  Instead of focusing on oppression or discrimination, which push our buttons considering race, poverty and other literacy issues, the underserved populations can be compared, not just by groups of people, but also by geographical, health, and other statistics that can help shape discussions and open the door to the issues, without a knee-jerk response - sorry if I exposed that about myself, but I do believe in an inclusive study or discussion group on Women and Literacy and how it impacts our society.
Just my thoughts...
Shirley

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ditmar0906_inossian at netzero.net" <ditmar0906_inossian at netzero.net> 
Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:42 pm 
Subject: [WomenLiteracy 625] Re: Update on Women and Literacy list 
To: womenliteracy at nifl.gov 


> I agree, and what I think is rather interesting about what I 

> interpret as one stream of thought running through this thread is 

> that the reason it even makes sense to lump women and race and 

> poverty together (notice it's not "men" but "race" here) and 

> "poverty" (not "class") is because these groups are all in some 

> ways, and many in several intersecting ways, oppressed ( I think 

> Mev touched on this.) 

> This, of course, includes lesbians who experience another whole 

> layer of oppression--homophobiaism (don't think that's a word but 

> . . . you get my drift). Actually I think homophobia hurts 

> everybody, the same as racism and sexism (and classism) do. Maybe 

> it would make more sense just to name the topic of the new 

> listserv "the oppressed"! At least thats what screams out at me 

> when I think about it. 

> And I do think that when one takes a broad look at women and 

> literacy from a feminist standpoint, there is a great deal of 

> emphasis on how power relations become transcribed through 

> literacy practices, including considerations of race and class. It 

> seems that age, sexual identity, and health and physical ability 

> are systems of oppression directly related to literacy practices 

> that have had much less attention and, in my estimation, deserve 

> more. This list might be a place where that discussion could begin. 

> I can see how attempting to navigate (not to mention negotiate) so 

> many topics might present its challenges, but the necessity to do 

> so might also help all of us understand and articulate our own 

> issues/interests/concerns more clearly. 

> Just my take on it . . . --Ditmar 

> -- sjrhodes at tampabay.rr.com wrote: 

> 

> It is time, in my opinion, to include lesbian women as a group of 

> women, not necessarily based on race. I don't believe this would 

> dilute the issues, but rather, be an inclusive discussion. 

> What do you think? 

> Shirley 

> 

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: Sandyajackson at cs.com 

> Date: Monday, October 23, 2006 1:17 pm 

> Subject: [WomenLiteracy 618] Re: Update on Women and Literacy list 

> To: womenliteracy at nifl.gov (The Women and Literacy Discussion 

> List) 

> 

> > I agree Audrey.. 

> > And I wonder why 'Women literacy' with 'Poverty, Race' why not 

> > 'health literacy' and Poverty, Race? 

> > I also know that Dr Greenberg will do an excellent job in 

> > monitoring 

> > Sandra Jackson 

> > 

> > Audrey Ambrosino <audrey at dresdenflats.org> wrote: 

> > 

> > >I, too, agree that the merging of the list is not in the best 

> > interest of the list users or those they serve. Clearly, there 

> is 

> > some overlap, but I believe that each population has distinct 

> > needs and issues. Merging the lists does seem to indicate that 

> > marginalized people should be thought of a unitary group. 

> Reminds 

> > me of the early days of the multicultural movement, where 

> > multicultural was often the catch-all phrase for those other 

> than 

> > the dominant group. Also, I fear that the amount of information 

> > being delivered through this new pipeline will be unwieldy and 

> > overwhelming to both list managers and consumers. 

> > > 

> > > I also wonder about the motivation for the merger and wonder 

> if 

> > list users were consulted and polled beforehand. While I 

> > understand that some lists are more active than others, I would 

> > argue that as long as a list is serving the needs of its 

> > subscribers and is being used on a regular basis, as are both of 

> > the lists in question, then it is valuable. 

> > > 

> > > Lastly, I wonder if there is potential to reverse this 

> decision 

> > and what collective action would be needed to pursue a reversal. 

> > > 

> > > Audrey Ambrosino 

> > > Graduate Student, Educational Psychology Doctoral Program 

> > > Georgia State University 

> > > 

> > > 

> > > 

> > >Barbara Petersohn <libbsp at langate.gsu.edu> wrote: 

> > > I am dissapointed that there is not support for individual 

> > lists for 

> > >these topics because often professionals are trying to focus 

> their 

> > >current events awareness through discussion lists like these 

> and 

> > want to 

> > >target specific topics. Consolidation of lists creates a flood 

> of 

> > >off-topic posts in one's mail box to have to review and delete. 

> > > 

> > >Not that we couldn't learn more from monitoring a variety of 

> lists, 

> > >it's just that when scanning several lists, as part of your job 

> or 

> > >professional interests, one also also has to spend time to 

> > reviewing and 

> > >deleting so many additional postings that are not relevant. 

> > > 

> > >Oh well... 

> > >Barbara Petersohn 

> > > 

> > >>>> "Laurie Sheridan" 10/23/2006 9:13 AM 

> > >>>> 

> > >I'm in agreement with Ujwala (and others who have expressed 

> > >disappointment) about this. Just seeing the title, "Poverty, 

> Race, 

> > >Women and LIteracy" makes it sound a little unfortunate to me, 

> > kind of 

> > >a 

> > >catch-all--women's issues aren't ONLY about poverty and race, 

> and 

> > >poverty and race aren't ONLY about women. Well, I'll say it--it 

> > >sounds a little like the list for all the "marginalized" folks, 

> > >lumping 

> > >them all together. I think I, and most of us, use somewhat 

> different 

> > >voices and perspectives in talking about women (and as women), 

> > and in 

> > >talking about poverty and race, even though the overlap is 

> > >considerable. 

> > >Do we know who uses each list-serv, and was the decision to 

> merge 

> > >them based on overlap there? I am trying to be optimistic that 

> this 

> > >will involve a wider group of e-mailers than either list alone, 

> but 

> > >something is also going to be lost in the translation. 

> > > 

> > >I do have great faith that you, Daphne, will be able to keep at 

> least 

> > >much of the focus on women, though. And also on poverty and 

> race! It 

> > >just covers an awful lot, and I hope this listserv continues to 

> be 

> > >meaningful on both fronts. 

> > > 

> > >Laurie Sheridan 

> > > 

> > >>>> lalumineuse at yahoo.com 10/23/2006 8:48 AM >>> 

> > >I am saddened to see the Women and Literacy list 

> > >closed. A bit shortsighted to that, and whilst I am 

> > >aware that it's women who are the victims of poverty, 

> > >merging the two lists will only confuse the issues 

> > >further. Is there a way to host the Women and Literacy 

> > >List elsewhere? 

> > >Ujwala 

> > > 

> > >--- Janet Isserlis wrote: 

> > > 

> > >> this is the response I'd sent to the content 

> > >> standards and English language 

> > >> lists; 

> > >> apologies for the cross posting for some 

> > >> 

> > >> Aside from the reasons given here, are there other 

> > >> substantive reasons for 

> > >> eliminating these two lists? While their content 

> > >> *may* overlap, at times, 

> > >> there are also distinct purposes to each, and useful 

> > >> information particular 

> > >> to each exchanged, and - at times - cross posted to 

> > >> various other lists. 

> > >> 

> > >> I'm very sorry to see these two lists being 

> > >> eliminated. 

> > >> 

> > >> Janet Isserlis 

> > >> 

> > >> 

> > >> 

> > >> From: Bertha Mo 

> > >> Reply-To: The Women and Literacy Discussion List 

> > >> 

> > >> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT) 

> > >> To: The Women and Literacy Discussion List 

> > >> 

> > >> Subject: [WomenLiteracy 594] Re: Update on Women and 

> > >> Literacy list 

> > >> 

> > >> I'm a bit concerned because I think that different 

> > >> folks subscribe to a list 

> > >> that is women focused. I'm pretty shy about 

> > >> responding to most lists. And 

> > >> I've been very encouraged by the gentle support I've 

> > >> received from you and 

> > >> others on the list. 

> > >> 

> > >> Best, 

> > >> 

> > >> Bertie 

> > >> 

> > >> Daphne Greenberg wrote: 

> > >> > I am wondering how people on this list feel about 

> > >> the merging of the 

> > >> > Women and Literacy List with the Poverty, Race, 

> > >> and Literacy list? Any 

> > >> > reactions? Happiness? Disappointment? Concern? 

> > >> Excitement? 

> > >> > Daphne 

> > >> > 

> > >> >>>> >>> "Nguyen, My Linh" 10/18/06 11:37 AM >>> 

> > >> > Dear Discussion List subscribers, 

> > >> > 

> > >> > As the National Institute for Literacy enters a 

> > >> new fiscal year, 

> > >> > we 

> > >> > have taken steps to streamline the way we deliver 

> > >> professional 

> > >> > development 

> > >> > to our discussion list members. A major change 

> > >> that will directly affect 

> > >> > you 

> > >> > is the merging of the Poverty, Race and Literacy 

> > >> List with the Women and 

> > >> > Literacy List starting November 6, 2006. 

> > >> > 

> > >> > We will continue to provide access to discussion 

> > >> archives on our 

> > >> > website. 

> > >> > 

> > >> > We have chosen to combine the two lists because 

> > >> we recognize 

> > >> > that 

> > >> > many of the issues that impact one group also 

> > >> affect the other group, 

> > >> > and 

> > >> > believe that many of the topics discussed on one 

> > >> list can 

> > >> > benefit 

> > >> > the other list. For that reason, we decided to 

> > >> combine the lists to 

> > >> > enhance 

> > >> > list members access to the latest ideas and 

> > >> information 

> > >> > available. 

> > >> > Race and gender issues often intersect, and it is 

> > >> most both practical 

> > >> > and 

> > >> > appropriate to have them intersect on one 

> > >> combined list. 

> > >> > 

> > >> > We know that many members of our two lists, 

> > >> especially members 

> > >> > of 

> > >> > our Women's list, view the lists as safe havens 

> > >> where issues can be 

> > >> > raised 

> > >> > and discussed. We want you to know that we will 

> > >> continue to 

> > >> > respect 

> > >> > your input and will maintain the same high level 

> > >> of sensitivity and 

> > >> > respect 

> > >> > we have always shown our list members. In 

> > >> combining the two 

> > >> > lists, 

> > >> > Daphne Greenberg will serve as the moderator for 

> > >> the new combined list. 

> > >> > Her 

> > >> > experience with women's literacy has enabled her 

> > >> to moderate the women's 

> > >> > list with the right balance of sensitivity and 

> > >> insight that is necessary 

> > >> > for 

> > >> > such a list. And we know that in assuming the 

> > >> responsibility of the new 

> > >> > list, she will bring the same balance to the 

> > >> Poverty, Race, Women, and 

> > >> > Literacy list. 

> > >> > 

> > >> > The Institute will be inviting current 

> > >> subscribers for both the 

> > >> > Poverty, Race Literacy List and the Women and 

> > >> Literacy List to the new 

> > >> > combined 

> > >> > Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy List. Once you 

> > >> receive the 

> > >> > invitation, you will need to confirm your 

> > >> subscription to the Poverty, 

> > >> > Race, Women and Literacy List. 

> > >> > 

> > >> > We encourage you to be an active participant in 

> > >> the new list by 

> > >> > sharing your unique perspectives to help make the 

> > >> Poverty, Race, Women 

> > >> > and 

> > >> > Literacy List a dynamic resource for information 

> > >> and 

> > >> > professional 

> > >> > development. 

> > >> > 

> > >> > My Linh Nguyen 

> > >> > Associate Director of Communications 

> > >> > National Institute for Literacy 

> > >> > (202) 233-2041 

> > >> > fax (202) 233-2050 

> > >> > mnguyen at nifl.gov 

> > >> > 

> > >> > 

> > >> ---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >> > National Institute for Literacy 

> > >> > Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >> > WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription 

> > >> settings, please go to 

> > >> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> > >> > 

> > >> > 

> > >> ---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >> > National Institute for Literacy 

> > >> > Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >> > WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription 

> > >> settings, please go to 

> > >> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> > >> > 

> > >> 

> > >> 

> > >> ---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >> National Institute for Literacy 

> > >> Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >> WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, 

> > >> please go to 

> > >> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> > >> 

> > >> > 

> > >---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >> National Institute for Literacy 

> > >> Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >> WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, 

> > >> please go to 

> > >http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> > > 

> > > 

> > >__________________________________________________ 

> > >Do You Yahoo!? 

> > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

> > >http://mail.yahoo.com 

> > >---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >National Institute for Literacy 

> > >Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go 

> to 

> > >http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> > >---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >National Institute for Literacy 

> > >Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go 

> to 

> > >http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> > >---------------------------------------------------- 

> > >National Institute for Literacy 

> > >Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > >WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > >To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go 

> to 

> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy> 

> > ---------------------------------------------------- 

> > National Institute for Literacy 

> > Women and Literacy mailing list 

> > WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov 

> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go 

> to 

> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy 

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/womenliteracy/attachments/20061025/4950edc8/attachment.html