The women's needs have been back grounded - either because the women compromise, the women do not speak, or because staff decide that "women's issues" are a "feminist agenda" and ought not be imposed on the programs simply because a few of the women (usually workers) have that particular hobbyhorse.

They decide that because the program is learner-centred it doesn't have to single out differences in sex - although many programs are beginning to recognize that, in an equivalent situation, singling out differences in race or source of income is acceptable. Thus, in theory, learner-centred programs respond to the needs of the generic, non-gendered student.

This generic, non-gendered student, however, rarely has a women's perspective or a feminist agenda that she is willing or able to articulate in this setting. In an analogous way, most of the women workers are not willing or able to articulate a women's perspective or a feminist agenda because of the conditions of their work.

Before looking at why this might be, I think it is essential that we recognize the very real concern women have of being ignored, censured, or attacked for behaviour that threatens male privilege. We can not trivialize the decisions women make not to raise women's issues or feminist agendas within program settings that have no practical- as compared to theoretical- commitment to anti-sexist education. Similarly, women who seem unaware of the ways in which they orient themselves to the actions of the men in a program cannot simply be labelled as having "false consciousness" or being "male-identified." Throughout their lives, they have been taught and they have learned very complex survival skills.

At the same time, however, women with privilege, who maintain that privilege by aligning themselves with privileged men, need to take responsibility for their strategic positions.

What about the men?

It is these understandings and distinctions that led me to think further about the question, What about the men? My first response was frustration that, even for an afternoon, we couldn't focus on women's experience as program staff and students. We had to keep coming back to the men. Finally, by paying attention to the context, I realized there were at least two different questions being asked.

The first question was: What are we going to do for men who don't want, or who are unable, to change - who continue to be sexist? How can we guarantee these men a safe place in a program that has decided to include woman-positive activities? This question seemed to want the woman-positive women to supply sexist men with a safe place before they proceed with activities that are designed for women.

The second question was: What are we going to do for the women who are in contact with the men who don't want or are unable to change? How can we guarantee these women a safe place in a program that has decided to include woman-positive activities? This question seemed to want the woman-positive women to ensure other women have support and protection before they proceed with activities that are designed for women.