Group items tagged

SSecond Wave Feminism The term 'Second Wave' was coined by Marsha Lear, and refers to the increase in feminist activity which occurred in America, Britain, and Europe from the late sixties onwards. In America, second wave feminism rose out of the Civil Rights and anti-war movements in which women, disillusioned with their second-class status even in the activist environment of student politics, began to band together to contend against discrimination. The tactics employed by Second Wave Feminists varied from highly-published activism, such as the protest against the Miss America beauty contest in 1968, to the establishment of small consciousness-raising groups. However, it was obvious early on that the movement was not a unified one, with differences emerging between black feminism, lesbian feminism, liberal feminism, and social feminism. Second Wave Feminism in Britain was similarly multiple in focus, although it was based more strongly in working-class socialism, as demonstrated by the strike of women workers at the Ford car plant for equal pay in 1968. The slogan 'the personal is political' sums up the way in which Second Wave Feminism did not just strive to extend the range of social opportunities open to women, but also, through intervention within the spheres of reproduction, sexuality and cultural representation, to change their domestic and private lives. Second Wave Feminism did not just make an impact upon western societies, but has also continued to inspire the struggle for women's rights across the world.

The parties to this action include: Plaintiffs (1) South Hill Neighborhood Association, Inc. (South Hill), a non-profit Kentucky corporation having as one of its purposes the preservation of historical buildings; (2) The Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, Inc. (Bluegrass Trust), a non-profit Kentucky corporation having as one of its purposes the preservation of historical buildings; (3) Curtis Harrison, a citizen, taxpayer and President of South Hill; (4) Mrs. Stathis Kafoglis, a citizen, taxpayer and owner of property within the area in controversy; (5) Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Dennis, citizens, taxpayers and owners of property within the area in controversy; and Defendants (1) George Romney, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); (2) The City of Lexington, Kentucky, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; (3) Honorable Charles Wylie, Mayor of Lexington, Kentucky; (4) The Board of City Commissioners of the City of Lexington, authorized city board for the City of Lexington; (5) Joseph Graves, Harry Sykes, Thomas Fugazzi, duly elected and qualified members of the Lexington Board of City Commissioners; (6) Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of the City of Lexington (Lexington Urban Renewal Agency), a municipal corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; (7) Robert E. Featherston, William R. Embry, Byron Romanowitz, D. C. Noble and H. J. Hagler, duly appointed, qualified and acting members of the Lexington Urban Renewal Agency; (8) Jennie Bryant, director of the Lexington Urban Renewal Agency; (9) Citizens Union National Bank and Trust Company, Inc. (Citizens Union Bank), a national banking corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the United States of America; (10) Norwood Construction Company, Inc. (Norwood Construction Co.), a Kentucky corporation; and (11) J. Norwood Hodge, President of Norwood Construction Co.

It is likewise clear that none of the plaintiffs have any real interest in this litigation. None of the plaintiffs own or have owned any of the seven buildings in controversy. None of the plaintiffs had legal control or title to the buildings when they were placed on the National Register. The Lexington Urban Renewal Agency had acquired title to these buildings in February, 1969, and the buildings were placed on the Register in July, 1969. None of the plaintiffs, though informed of the urban renewal plan's alternate use for historic preservation, submitted a proposal for development of the area. The plaintiffs' interest in the litigation is not sufficient to give them standing to bring a mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, or court review of administrative action under 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. They do not have a personal stake in the outcome. Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 927 (2 Cir.1968).