I needed to put these questions into context before I could work with them in a pragmatic, rather than simply reactive, manner. They are questions that we needed to consider seriously, both as we began phase two and as we reflected on and documented what happened in each location. For example, we needed to ask: Is it our responsibility to work with the men or to try to interest men in taking some responsibility for working with other men?

We seem to have little ambivalence in terms of our responsibility to continue working with the women in a way that provides them with necessary support. Yet, if we do take on the responsibility of working with the men, that will leave us very little time, energy, or resources to continue our work with women. And I can already hear the response for more resources to work with women being countered with the claim that, since we are working with the men, that is helping the women and so there will be no more allocated to the women.

Why would we, why do we, have that fight - the fight to do something positive for women without having to do something for the men first? Why, when we want to do something positive for women, are we told that we can't because the program is learner-centred, not woman-centred; community-based, not woman-based. We seemingly can't do something woman-positive because then we would no longer be working with "learners" or with the "community." We would be working with "women." As I continued my discussions, I began to recognize two suspicions lurking behind these responses.

First, women who want to work with women are practically suspect. They are assumed to be feminist and, therefore, are assumed to have an agenda that will not only be biased in favour of women but against men and against community. Their practice will supposedly discriminate and bring about division within the program and within the community. (As if that division does not already exist.)

Second, women who want to work with women are theoretically suspect. Feminist theory is not congruent with critical theory - it breaks solidarity along sex lines and supposedly reinforces difference rather than commonality. Since emancipatory literacy theory has been built on an empowerment model that does not distinguish between student and student, community member and community member, making these distinctions based on sex is assumed to be disempowering. (As if not making distinctions based on sex is not disempowering.)

In response to these assumptions and suppositions, I believe we need to continue questioning the assumption that community members and students are generic people. Just as generic "man" does not include the gendered woman, generic "student" and generic "community member" does not include the gendered student or community member. Thus, programs that respond to the needs of "students" or the needs of "communities," the needs of "families" or the needs of "the workplace," may not be meeting the needs of the gendered woman.