I have a couple of question/comments after thinking about the readings for this week. First, Prof. Tadiar's article engenders nations - Western vs. Eastern; US as male in comparison with Japan as "wife" (222) or "mistress" (223), with Philippines, in turn, being the "wife" in relation with Japan. I wonder whether defining "masculinity" and "femininity" in the suggested manner in which male is clearly dominant to the female is not simply perpetuating the discrepancy that feminists are trying to fight against. Second, both Taylor's and Pettman's articles depict masculinity as exclusive, either as military, governmental or societal forces. Based on the readings, I imagine that the opposite feminine position is inclusive; Pettman describes the goals of different feminist groups as "increasing women's access and power", "using the state for feminist goals" and "urg[ing] state action in defence of women's rights" (10), all of which attempt to include women in existing institutions. On the other hand Pettman also states that women are faced with Wollstonecraft's dilemma, in which one can either seek "a politics where gender does not matter" or "assert the special work that women do as women" (18). I find the dilemma to be inherently gendered. In the first case, women would be attempting to assimilate bodily into traditionally male roles in society. In the second, women would be unabashedly declaring their femininity - but at the same time exerting an exclusion principle that mimics the masculine exclusion that has been so often protested. The question then is whether there might be a third (or fourth or fifth, etc.) option in which a female power can be formed and exercised without ostracizing one or more parties?