sooner rather than later, as Alec is home today sick with me. 

One of the things I often struggle to teach students is how to manage your time.  Trust me, I was SO planning to dive straight into writing today.  Obviously with the constant interruptions of a seven year old, that isn’t going to happen. 
So I had to juggle my plans at the last minute.  What I CAN’T do is simply decide, well, my first plan is ruined, so I’ll just do nothing, tempting as it may be.  I’m going to label all day and do the contextual online research I need to start making sense of what I’ve found. 
In the process, I’ve already had an idea for how to organize my first chapter, quickly wrote it up in a word doc, and saved it in the same folder as the images that sparked the thoughts. 
As I mentioned in a previous post, part of my project is trying to understand why, when artists were heavily involved in the early days of radical feminist theorizing, their role has been relatively unacknowledged by historians.   I have an idea that part of the problem came in the late 1970s as debates about the correlation between images of women, particularly those in pornography, and violence against women, created an ideological schism among feminists.  Between 1978 and 1981 there were a series of conferences dealing with anti-pornography, Simone de Beuavoir, and the history of sexuality that caused several intense debates in person and then continuing in print after the conferences ended.  I’m going to try to trace out the impact of those debates, which are collectively known as the sex wars (with the exception of SDB conference) in subsequent histories of the movement.  
In the mean time, I’m cyber stalking some sixties activists whose help I’m definitely going to need to make sense of this all.  That is the best and the worst part of writing about the not-dead.  They can help, sometimes, if they are willing, but sometimes they don’t want to.