The pattern of this week's readings point to a theme that may best be characterized as "the imposing help." All three readings discuss certain organizational apparatus who have the intention of helping women, but seem to be misguided and ignorant of specific histories. The Grewal reading hearkened back to the "What is Feminist Politics Now?" conference and the discussion centering on the helping or harming role of international political organizations. And in the Briggs article, scathing criticism is presented of "mainstream feminism" and their role in framing (and polarizing) the sterilization debate, as well as leaving Puerto Rican feminists out of the debate altogether. And the Martin article, though in a different tone, suggests that biologists, whose fundamental job description is designed to be that of a helping agent, are in fact semantic sculptors of stereotype. Firstly, how are we to approach the modification of such systems that are supposed to be helpful? How are organizations and modes of thinking supposed to change? The question of "who" comes up here. "Who" is supposed to lead the battle for global health? Is global health a flawed term to begin with?

And in thinking about terms, I think the readings' overwhelming focus on semantics and terms and metaphors begs the question, yet again, about the valuation we place on our terms. But how can we perceive of a revision of the feminist lexicon if feminism is really feminisms? Should we strive to engage in war over terms and metaphors? In the end, won't modified terms simply end up offending someone else?