It’s been an interesting year being an officer of the Action Alliance and growing into a more formal and organized role. I have enjoyed working on the LDG group and developing processes for board affairs and human resources. It has helped me also take ideas to the non-profit I run: The Rappahannock Council Against Sexual Assault, for my board’s development and training. It gave me great access to some very talented peers and helped me evolve.

Now I take on a new role and will work on fund development plans for a large state-wide coalition. I also will be working on how to help the coalition navigate the tricky world of fund raising without poaching funders or donor territory from local centers. I do think there are ways to share the fund raising and work together with local centers.

It’s exciting to take on new roles and both give and learn. I hope others in Virginia will join this committee and help me and the Action Alliance develop it’s funding resources to froward it’s programs, advocacy, training, and support to local centers. Join us! www.vsdvalliance.org

http://www.allthingshealing.com/Non-Profs-Orgs/Project-Empowerment-The-Pixel-Project/10397

Related articles

• Art Therapy on an alternative healing online community: All Things Healing (arttherapyblog.wordpress.com)

 1. Program Assistant:  part-time position to provide assistance with administration, grants management, information and resources and intervention services. Experience with office management, filing systems, data tracking systems, accounts receivable.  The person must be organized, able to manage time effectively and task oriented. 

2. Medical billing associate:  very part-time position to handle insurance filing and billing.  Able to use specialized software. 

We are an equal opportunity employer and support a diverse workforce.  We do not discriminate on gender, race, ethnicity, identity, age, ability, or religion.  All are encouraged to apply. 

All employees must have a reliable form of transportation to utilize during the course of their work, pass pre-employment back-ground checks and drug testing, and be flexible in their hours.   

Please check our website for an application at Join our Team  at www.rcasa.org

As I spend more time in leadership within the non-profit sector now, this will be a nice venue for me to talk more about leadership within the Anti-violence field and art therapy field.  Both of which are difficult areas to promote and educate the public, and both industries are only now beginning to really assess leadership within the organizations.

Perhaps this will get me back to blogging more regularly!

Our industry has changed so much in the 30 years it’s been developing.  I can’t believe the gains at times.  But it is a different “animal’ so to speak than it was and time for us to have defined leadership programs to help us as our centers become more complicated to deal with the very complicated issues surrounding trauma. 

I look forward to my employee learn great things to bring back to my agency and watch her grow into the next leader in our industry.

Laurel Weldon (2008) provides a critical examination of social theorist, Iris Young and her views on the evolution and impact of representative democracy through a feminist lens, particularly on group rights, race and ethnicity and social movements.   Weldon describes Young, through her writing over two decades, as appearing to both create a focused lens on this impact through a theory of gender and yet provides a means to broaden the view of feminist theory to encompass a more comprehensive application across the multitude of social groups that exist  globally, nationally, and locally.  Young had proposed a theory to examine the impact of gender as a social structure and utilize gender theory to examine power relations.   She described social structures as:  “a constellation of social practices, norms, and institutional rules…comprised of practices and meanings that are embedded, reflected and/or expressed in material surroundings; and… experienced as “given” by individuals, although they are formed through the cumulation of individual actions” (Weldon, 2008).

Weldon (2008) writes that concepts of gender are really to be examined on social axis rather than just singular identities.  This concept flows particularly well when progress is made in some areas yet then undermines other areas.  If one only looks at singular structures rather than the relationship between such; as in the individual within the community, the community group within the larger region or district, the ethnic group or gendered group within the larger mass; one misses a large part of the equation between structures or groups.   Managhan (2005) highlights in her essay on mothers and military politics and DiQuizio (2005) highlights this effect in her examination of the Million Man and Million Mom marches.  Both seem to highlights the competition between the groups in their efforts to draw attention to their causes, how representatives take an issue and begin to advocate according their own particular perception and their own particular cultural or gender identified need.  Bridgeman, et al (2009) makes the same conclusion in regards to representative democracy in rural locations and specifically to the 2008 presidential election.  They compared the use of representation in the more populated and politically present areas versus the predominately rural areas that are not or not able to engage in national political discourse at the same level as the rest of the country.  Their identification of the “phenomenon of localism” (p. 81) and the bias toward the familiar and local is in concert with DiQuizio’s examination of a similar effect on cultural discourse at national levels.

DiQuizio raises excellent questions for us to answer (p. 241) regarding civic engagement in our political culture.  While she focuses on maternalistic civic engagement, her suggestion that “feminists activists and organizations should be working with the wide range of sophisticated feminist analysis of the mass media” are portable to other political interests such as: gender, race, culture, orientation, geography, and more.  Tie this then to Dolan (2000) in which she identifies an additional barrier regarding the accountability of civil servants inherent to the application of policy on local and state levels.  She writes that while “democratic theory demands that the public be able to reward or sanction government officials through regular elections.  But the public cannot remove civil servants through popular elections…” (p. 3).  Dolan goes on to highlight theories designed to keep checks and balances in place but of course, and emphasizes the ideal that our diversity will produce policy that is consistent with the public’s wants.  However, in practice this only works if the representatives actually share the values and attitudes of the public and actually act in the best interests of the group at large.   The ideals postulated in Dolan’s paper suggest that all marginalized groups get represented equally but in practice we know this to not be true. This truth is made more evident by the very existence of grass roots groups that emerge to identify themselves as advocating for the unheard cultures, genders, and ethnicities.  Bridgeman et al small focus on just one election actually brings to focus the impact of a group that does not or cannot engage in political discourse at the national or global level nor has a representative that brings their interest to the forefront, they get ignored.

What is most interesting in these readings is that the idea of self-interest of the representative as a barrier to true community representation does not get brought up.  These articles seem to assume that all diversions from the group’s interest are within small group competitions over prominence in the political agenda.   While Dolan and the other authors in this review assume that the usual things that put us in groups: gender, gender expression, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability, health status, economic status, etc. are the things that shape decision making in policy; they do not consider outliers within the individual experience and the impact of that on self-interest in the political realm.   Additionally, how people represent themselves on surveys and vocally in offices is not necessarily how they act or what they want to happen politically.  Meaning, that when researchers like Dolan find a linear construct between the presence of a particular group in an office and therefore more attention to that group’s issues, are they accounting for the possibility that employees will verbalize the agency accepted culture statement and may be repressing their own?   This may account for the disparity of findings by Dolan in regards to how female executives behave as representatives.

These readings also beg the question; does one group “own” a cause?  Does the elected representative then need to maintain that ownership or allow the evolution of such ideals and causes to grow to become both more inclusive and therefore more representative of society without consulting back to the originators of the cause or idea?  Certainly the discourse between the Million Man March and the Million Mom March has brought up this argument.   A new movement called Hollaback may bring this up as well.  While it was initiated by a group of women in Canada, a movement created through social argument only, with no policy agenda; it was picked up by an innovator in the US and organized specifically to allow splinter groups to take the name yet exist on their own.  It is now global in its agenda to address street violence through both social discourse and to initiate policy.  It will be interesting to see how this gets picked up in policy development from a free global movement to be developed as local policy through representative means.  Are we really at the cusp of global politics and are groups like Hollaback fore-shadowing this?

References

Bridgeman, J., Lawson-Borders, G., and Zamudio, M. (2009). Representative democracy in rural america: Race, gender, and class through a localism lens. In Seattle Journal for Social Justice. Vol. 8 (pp. 81 – 95).

DiQuinzio. P. (2005). Love and reason in the public sphere: Maternalist civic engagement and the dilemma of difference. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy. (pp. 227–246). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

Dolan J. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy. In Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Jul 2000; 10, 3: ABI/INFORM Global (pp. 513-529).

Managhan, T. (2005). (M)others, Biopolitics, and the Gulf War. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy. (pp. 205–225). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

Weldon, S.L. (2008). Difference in and social structure: Iris young’s legacy of a critical social theory of gender.  In Politics and Gender.  4 (2) 2008. (pp. 311- 317).

The first chapter is on Constructive Partnerships.  I like how this chapter outlines the core relationship between the board and the Executive Director.  I have found it to be helpful to me as I grew into a director.  I also realized that the reason I was losing board members before was lack of appropriate training for both me as a director and them as a board.  No wonder we were all overwhelmed!

One of the best things of this chapter is the promotion of a building a strong allegiance with the Executive Director in the pursuit of the mission.  Additionally the concept of clarity in roles: a clear orientation of duties (operations are delegated to the Director and not the board), the expectations of communication between board and director, and the need for structure between the two entities.  This orientation helps both entities relax and focus on their actual work.

I have found this to be helpful in establishing a good working relationship with my current board.  I am finding this expectation asks more of me, more responsibility in my role of director, and to take on more accountability.  While this is frightening at times, it is also empowering.   I find that I am beginning to relax more with a better foundation set with my board in my role as Director.  I am also learning how to recruit the board I need at the time I need them.  I realize now that as my skills change, the needs I have from board members also changes.

On to the next chapter…..

The Marxist Lens on Feminine Equality

Lorber provides a brief synopsis of the a Marxist perspective on the source of gender inequality, the politics surrounding the formation of gendered inequality, along with a critique this viewpoint and the gaps this viewpoint has in recognizing ethnic exploitation.   The Marxist view of women and mothers as described by Lorber, related women as “vital to capitalism” (pp. 47) as another means to support the male or “bosses” and implies that marriage or women’s subservience in such an arrangement is designed to reproduce more workers for the state.  This viewpoint regulates women to a mere accessory both in the home and as a fallback in case the male head-of-house is unable t work for any reason.  This viewpoint gives great support to women’s subservient role as necessary to the continuation of a “dual system of capitalism and patriarchy.”  (pp. 47).   Here, Lorber identifies the role of women as “a reserve army of workers” whose role is to support the male breadwinner in the home and yet be prepared to step up to work in the community and labor force when needed.  This relates clearly to Managhan’s discussion about women’s role during times of war and military conflict that women’s positions in both the civilian and the military workforce in traditionally male positions increased during war time to keep the economy going yet was easily abandoned when men returned to their jobs.   Lorber’s critique highlights the racialized practices that added to the inequalities of gendered class practices in the development of capitalism under a patriarchal model and how that played out in the community as a means to keep both women and males from minority groups marginalized.  This structure keeps the gendered roles continuing and keeps women marginalized as a group subservient to the interests of males, particularly white males in power.

The Practical Output in the Income Revolution

Conway (2005) describes the impact of gendered inequality when it comes to the day-to-day facts of women’s lives.  She describes the lack of housing options, insurance coverage, credit lines, and retirement income.  These gendered economics based on concepts of a family system fast becoming archaic now puts a spotlight on the true impact today of such policies.  Again, as explored by DiQuinzio, this highlights the dilemma of motherhood through the lens of civic engagement and the public sphere, which now includes the working life of women.  Here too, the concept of seeing women only through the lens of motherhood and that motherhood is the role most appropriate for women also defines women to traditional jobs that are servile.  Again, one finds connection to this in DiQuinzio’s statement  that “women’s civic engagement is more likely to be accepted when it is based on motherhood, since motherhood has long been seen as women’s distinctive and most appropriate role.” (pp. 227).

Ren and Zhu further this discussion in regards to gender differences in compensation since 1970.  With more women entering the workforce as careerists and achieving higher jobs, one would expect the pay to equalize and the opportunities to increase, yet there remain gendered differences in pay and overall earning potential.   While Ren and Zhu suggest that it was “the impact of occupational segregation [that] explained much of the gender gap in total compensation” they go onto explain this with the knowledge that women executives tend “to work for smaller companies and in lower-paying industries than their male counterparts.”   A woman’s path through education is not addressed as a contributing factor, with fewer women going into traditional “male” fields of study, which then impacts their progress into upper level jobs and executive positions.  There are a higher number of women that go into the non-profit sector and end up running those businesses.  Here the gender disparity plays out in providing a place for women to work in roles that are related to the ideals of motherhood, are in industries that relate to the concept of women as nurturing (rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, programs for teen mothers, etc) and have been designed to offer great flexibility in a work schedule to accommodate the needs of mothers and wives who must or want to work yet must also manage a household and care take full-time.  So the burgeoning non-profit world with women as leaders begins to grow, yet these very women did so without formal education or within social work and not management related fields.  These women then become Executives yet are marginalized in pay equality in comparison to male counterparts due to lack of appropriate education or management experience.  This further serves to keep entire industries that were developed to focus on women in true disparity for funds, leadership, and recognition for importance in the communities they serve.

Women Voting Against the Perceived Grain

There are many false assumptions as to how women vote and where in lays their political allegiance.  Dolan (2007) provides a brief history of the voice of women in voting practice in contrast to assumptions made by the populace and women themselves.  This is a furtherance of her examination of the choices women’s groups made in order to achieve any political and social gains toward equality.  In this chapter, Dolan mainly debunks the stereotypes that form about how women vote and the assumptions made that women align democratically.  Perhaps women, as men, vote along perceived lines of power in the communities they live in and along the path mostly likely to support them.  Already we have seen how women can accept the small gains made through offers of small steps toward equality which only further a reign of paternalism.  Again we look at women’s choices in voting along political power paths as negotiations to equality through a Sophie’s Choice method.  Dolan clearly defines the change of gendered focus of women within democracy not through the recruitment of women into the Democratic Party but rather the flight of men from it.  This is not the same as an increasing recognition toward political equality but rather another example of a small step forward and the social pushback of males then achieving power through an opposing political party.  As I stated in the last paper, this “Sophie’s Choice” is still used to control growth, stymie progress, and subvert the equalization of all groups and genders today.  This clearly plays out in the anti-violence field as more women run these centers, which are started as non-profits that are socially run, and are designed to focus on the needs of women.  Equality for women is so tied into this, that the needs of male victims of violence are hardly addressed at all.  As in the feminist movement toward equality in voting, employment, and education; the younger generation of the anti-violence field moved from using political action to community building and generating local activism toward smaller gains.   This younger generation has come to ask for less than their fore-bearers did and in smaller steps.   While the former generation asked for radical change and eventually achieved some radical growth (voting rights, the ability to own property, the beginnings of job equality), the younger generation seems to weight the economics and safety of pursuing radical growth.  However, by taking this cautious, one step forward approach, we often have gains that result in yet another means of subjugation, oppression, or marginalization.

Dolan’s explanation of the political realities of women voting and identifying in political parties accompanies the examination of pay equality and the Marxist feminine theory of gendered economics.  Dolan also highlights how women may vote differently from men but that they don’t necessarily vote for women or women’s issues.  This concept of motherhood and its force within the political and economic sphere is vastly complicated and perhaps cannot be examines within the same format as other economic and political analysis are being done.  Again, the pairing of these texts again shows how the initial gains made through advocacy is in fact a double-edged sword of gain and loss.

References

Conway, M., Ahern, D., Steuernagel, G. (2005) Women and public policy: A revolution in progress. (pp.123-140). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

DiQuinzio, P. (2005). Love and Reason in the Public Sphere: Maternalist Civic Engagement and the dilemma of Difference. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy. (pp. 227246). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

Dolan, J., Deckman, M., & Swers, M. (2007) Women and politics. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Lorber, J. (2010). Gender Inequality. (pp. 46-69). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Managhan, T. (2005). (M)others, Biopolitics, and the Gulf War. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy. (pp. 205–225). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

Ren, R., and Zhu, Y. (2010). Executive Compensation: Is there a gender gap?  Research brief: National Nature Science Foundation.

Women and the politics of war
Tina Managhan writes in her essay “(M)others, Biopolitics, and the Gulf War” (2005) about the changing
viewpoint of women and their relationship with the military. This change is purported to be a change
from the “rationality of care” as proposed by Sara Ruddick (1990) that Managhan puts in opposition to
the military state. She talks extensively of how the engagement of women into the military enforced a
change in the mobilization of mothers from an organized and very vocal antinuclear movement to a
quiet subliminal whisper of tacit consent of military support that only “contributed to the
remilitarization of American culture....by participating in the war as soldiers and contributing to the
myth of a vital and unified national community” (pp. 208) While much stigma about women and the
roles that they were capable of kept women out of combat positions, women’s positions in both the
civilian and the military workforce in traditionally male positions increased during war time to keep the
economy going. Yet following the Gulf War (or inflated militarized political engagement), the answer to
the feminists’ request for equality in the military is answered at a time very convenient to garner the
support of women to what had become an embattled cause. Here in lies an example of the double-bind
women or any marginalized group faces when attempting to make gains for equality; the gain is often
given when the outcome will actually benefit the group in power the most and result in yet another
marginalization of the group. Managhan goes on to declare the institution of motherhood as just
another culturally regulated institution that is at the mercy of commercialism and politics as any other.
Motherhood and the Dilemma of Difference
DiQuinzio (2005) looks at the dilemma of motherhood through the lens of civic engagement and the
public sphere. While she too, examines the double-bind that women face in attempting to create
change, she posits that “women’s civic engagement is more likely to be accepted when it is based on
motherhood, since motherhood has long been seen as women’s distinctive and most appropriate role.”
(pp. 227). Here, she flips the predator/protector logic described by other writers examining the reality
of feminist gains as opposite to the dilemma of difference but again as a method of undermining the
progress of female autonomy. DiQuinzio appears to also adhere to the brand of double-bind that
highlights that every perceived gain is in fact a loss of freedom in another aspect. The reality of this
concept shines clearly on the progress of the anti-violence movement, giving breath to the same
concerns of one-step forward, two steps back. Like the Million Mom’s March, the anti-violence field
was started by women and has faced the same barriers to progress and the same double-binds that the
MMM faced. The dilemma of difference equally applies as women face being reduced to being
marginalized as either anti-feminine anti-nuclear family radicals or idiot females that use their status of
motherhood without clear logic to reduce males to being unfairly targeted as pedophiles and rapists.
The Dance of Progress toward Equality for Women
Dolan (2007) provides a nice explanation to the progress through history from the choices women’s
groups made in order to achieve any political and social gains toward equality. Dolan highlights from
the beginning how negotiations were processed to give but small parts of equality through a Sophie’s
Choice method. Her example is the Civil War and women’s work to support the abolition of slavery and
so was then offered the choice to make that gain over the same gain for women. This “Sophie’s Choice”
is still used to control growth, stymie progress, and subvert the equalization of all groups and genders
                                                                                                            2
Running Head: WOMEN AND THE DOUBLE BIND IN POLITICS
today. Again I relate it to the anti-violence field and working to create human rights to be free from
violence and sexual coercion against the same push to continue to accept the control of women, female
sexuality, and female reproduction as necessary for their protection. Bargaining invades the education,
response, prosecution, and policy of the sexually violent survivor. In today’s world, we continue to hear
that one gain toward equality in addressing the violence survivor is followed by yet another means to
reduce rights, subvert investigation, and detract from prosecution. A survivor’s right to seek
investigation and therefore prosecution is limited in time from the assault; yet the further one gets from
an assault, the easier it is to remember the incident with the calmness that allows for verbalizing the
narrative of the crime. Here, too, the progress of this field echoes the conclusion of the feminist
movement’s theory that “gender discrimination was pervasive in society rather than a consequence of
personal failings.” (Dolan, pp. 25)
As in the feminist movement toward equality in voting, employment, and education; the younger
generation of the anti-violence field moved from using political action to community building and
generating local activism toward smaller gains. This younger generation has come to ask for less than
their fore-bearers did and in smaller steps. While the former generation asked for radical change and
eventually achieved some radical growth (voting rights, the ability to own property, the beginnings of
job equality), the younger generation seems to weight the economics and safety of pursuing radical
growth. However, by taking this cautious, one step forward approach, we often have gains that result in
yet another means of subjugation, oppression, or marginalization.
Dolan’s brief history of women’s advocacy through time displays a nice accompaniment to the essays in
Meagher’s publication. Dolan also highlights how women advocate differently than men, how woman
initially approached advocating for rights through their role as mothers. This “civic motherhood”
became the torch for gaining social advances following the few political gains that were made in the first
wave of feminism. Managhan (2005) and DiQuinzio (2005) both show how the initial gains made
through this advocacy was in fact a double-edged sword of gain and loss.
                                                                                                          3
Running Head: WOMEN AND THE DOUBLE BIND IN POLITICS
References
DiQuinzio, P. (2005). Love and Reason in the Public Sphere: Maternalist Civic Engagement and
the dilemma of Difference. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy.
(pp. 227246). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.
Dolan, J., Deckman, M., & Swers, M. (2007) Women and politics. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice
Hall.
Managhan, T. (2005). (M)others, Biopolitics, and the Gulf War. In Women and children first:
Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy. (pp. 205–225). Albany, NY.: State University of New
York Press.

DiQuinzio and Meagher write of the double-bind that woman, as well as other marginalized groups, still experience in paternalistic society.  As the Director of a human rights organization, I find this applies to sexually violent crimes, survivors and offenders.

The reference to Hoagland’s theory of “predator/protector that combines protection and vilification”; that blames women for their own marginalization by society and victimization by men and the paths that this has taken us since colonialism and before is as true today as it was in 1995.  Sexual violence survivors, of all genders, continue to be subject to a paternalistic structure of disempowering disbelief, inadequate policy and laws under the guise of protection, and the continued social oppression of myths that perpetuate marginalization of victims of crime, particularly women.

Their collection of essays examines disempowerment and the use of rhetoric and policy to enhance this very subjection, oppression, and continued marginalization of women through medicine, through concepts of motherhood, through the social construction of masculinity and concepts and definitions of violence toward women.  A recent example is the hate crime perpetuated in my area toward a transgender woman, attacked and beaten in public because she identified openly as transgender.  The discourse and arguments in public forum on this attack show the community still believes a person not fitting in with traditional concepts of gender does not rate the same protections from violence.

The Inequality of Gender

Lorber provides an excellent pairing to this discussion through her examination of the variations of feminism and the development of theories through time and culture.  It is interesting that she describes the first wave of feminist rights as being obtained following wars and political conflicts as favors to work during those times.  Certainly the reduction of the male population during war also brings increased awareness of the need to bring women to fill leadership roles in business and communities.  Loder describes how cultures then developed patriarchal systems designed to keep women in second place while offering the illusion of empowerment through rights to work and vote.  One thought rises during this discussion, is the small advancement given to women during this first wave of feminism also a means to distract or delay women from pursuing true cultural equality?  So the second wave of feminists took up arms to address the many layers of cultural oppression of women and working toward including social, cultural and interpersonal equality.  The third wave of feminists is highlighted by Loder as becoming inclusive of all genders in their orientation toward women’s rights, as incorporating a richer definition of women’s power as the inclusive of gender, societal, sexual and economic power.  Loder then identifies three main facets of feminist theory: the “reformist” feminists focus on changing the unequal dynamics in work, home and politics; the “resistant” feminists who focused on patriarchal systems of oppression and exploitation; and the “rebellious” feminists who focus on all inequalities that are present in societies; and how these feminists have confronted and worked to influence the gendered social order.  These waves of feminist theories and the work of those feminists all seem to build upon the previous theories, reject parts of their predecessors, and respond to the push-back of society at each gain toward rights.

Again, I see the push-back of any political, social, and economic gain as being played out against the groups and genders most marginalized. I frequently feel the one-step forward and two steps back of any progress toward equal rights and equitable roles that women and other marginalized groups face.  In the anti-violence field, I find this push back coming from women as frequently as I find it coming from men.  I hear the same prejudicial statements coming from women regarding victims of sexually violence crimes, regarding women on state support programs, regarding women in the workforce and women outside of the workforce.

Women and public policy

Conway, et al looks more specifically at policy and the impact of such on women, women’s rights, and women’s forward progress as initially dependent on the support and actions of men.  Conversely, the gaining of political, social and economic rights have led to the need for policies to be developed that more clearly and conclusively addressed the needs of women in the workforce, the needs of women in regards to their medical and mental health, and their religious needs as well.  Conway, et al identified the greatest attention to women’s policy concerns following the two most significant political changes that happened in the 1060’s:  equal pay and gender discrimination.  However, it has been purported that the gains in rights and policy have benefited white, middle-class women the most politically, socially, economically.  Such policy changes will, most often, benefit those who already have the most access to benefits, to medical care, to education; and have the greater time available to pursue such benefits as education, medical care, and social interaction.  Conway, et al addresses this by explaining the non-linear process by which policy is developed and then implemented.  Like most efforts toward social change; people whose attention is on the inequality are the ones whose lives have been affected the most by the oppressive policies and are the ones most marginalized by society.  Those individuals have the greater barriers to pursuing rights and then fully accessing them once attained.

Conway, et al goes on to lay out three models of policy development.  The most common viewpoint of policy development is the theory of policy being developed by a “dominant elite” whose values are represented the most and who desire is to protect the interests of the elite.  It is suggested that “dominant elite” create self-perpetuating systems that continue to benefit those groups the most. The second viewpoint states the policy is developed by special interest groups, their own needs and the conflicts they have between them.  This viewpoint is just as competitive as the first viewpoint but does allow groups other than the elite to create policy and therefore social change.  While these groups may have self-interest at their core, change benefitting the greater mass or the marginalized groups may still happen.  The third viewpoint is that policy changes slowly and incrementally.  This system change is held under by the cumbersome dynamics of large systems that are slow to change, are encumbered by bureaucracy, and are limited in vision.

I see the field I work in as being impacted the most by the “dominant elite” viewpoint, that sexually violent crimes and other interpersonal violence are fearful things to acknowledge as part of our society, and that one of the fears is the recognition that offenders come from all social levels.  I also see that the influence that viewpoint two has on my industry, that each special interest group divides itself to focus onto its own small piece of any problem and seeks to create policy that benefit them more than their allied partners.  An example is the division of interpersonal violence into: sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and other crime; which leaves these systems competing to develop policies, affect social change, and create programs specifically for them.

Summary

Overall, the texts are organized to give the historical and current view of the development of gender roles and the paternalistic societies that contain women, the rise of feminism to combat sexism and oppression of women, and the development of policy in reaction to social change and as a means to slow its growth.  The essays by each of the editors and author, display an awareness of the complex dynamics that are inherent in any process of change, the use of passive resistance to change and the use of policy to both promote and inhibit change at different times in the overarching history of our political development.

References

Conway, M. M., Ahern, D. W., & Steuernagel, G. A. (2005). Women and public policy. In Women and public policy a revolution in progress (3 ed., pp. 1-248). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Meagher, S. & Diquinzio, P. (2005). Introduction: Women and children first. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy.  (pp. 1 – 13). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

Lorber, J. (2010). Gender inequality feminist theories and politics (4 ed.). New York: Oxford

Univeristy Press.