Our experience in this research convinces me that unless practitioners are able to allocate time and resources to a reflective investigation of commonsense practice in their programs, they will not be able to make visible the distinctions that already exist between the various male and female experiences of being staff or student.

Similarly, members of communities and students are differently located in terms of race, ability, immigration status, relation to children, employment status, sexuality, source of income, and so on. To erase difference on any level is surely to restrict our ability to meet the needs of students, community members, family members, and workers who live the experience of these locations in all facets of their lives, including in literacy programs.

Yet arguments that demonstrate the tensions and contradictions women face in programs continue to be met by passive resistance and active negation - both of which have been experienced by some women students and staff as aggression. This aggression can be perceived as a form of violence, as a method of marginalization, of reinforcing women's powerlessness, of refusing recognition of women's cultural difference, and of continued exploitation of women workers. They make up what Iris Marion Young (1990) calls the five faces of oppression.

A significant number of the women who participated in this research raised serious concerns about the repercussions of implementing new activities specifically for women. They expressed particular interest in the personal and program support that comes from having their activities "researched" as part of a national project. Simply by participating in this research they gained some measure of protection against the seemingly innocuous question: What about the men?

Other programs were interested in participating because they have experienced difficulty involving women literacy workers and students in "women's issues." They thought some of this difficulty might stem from concern over possible responses from others involved in the program or from members of the community. They believed that by being part of a national research project they gained a legitimacy that provided advance protection.

Still others - and this has proven to be a complex consequence of the research for me - did not anticipate difficulty in engaging in and documenting woman-positive activities. To some extent, this was because they chose activities that were congruent with the program philosophy and that they thought would not challenge that philosophy. Their experience of unanticipated resistance resulted, in almost all instances, in significant personal, professional, political, and structural change.

I could not possibly anticipate, at the beginning of this phase of the research, the incredible range of answers we discovered when we asked, "What happens when some women in an adult literacy program decide to do something they consider woman-positive?" The material in this book, and in The-power of woman-positive literacy work is testimony to women's ability to both affirm and challenge their own reality and the reality of others they work, play, and do research with. I have tremendous respect for their open and respectful response to these challenges, and give thanks for the strength and generosity of their affirmation.