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.

I was struck by the visual of the pyramid on the first page of the Introduction.  It made my therapist-trained brain think of Maslov’s hierarchy of needs.   At the base is “Industriousness, Friendship, Loyalty, Cooperation, and Enthusiasm”  I realized my team had only Enthusiasm.  I was crushed at the reality that I only really knew part of my job.  So I started reading and found that even the Introduction is valuable and gave me insight. 

I could relate to this guy, hired as an English teacher but expected to coach.  I am a trained therapist who was hired to run a small non-profit and lead advocates for a cause that no one is sympathetic to, for victims of a crime that few actually believe happens: sexual violence.   My years of doing therapy for victims of sexually violence crimes fed my ego that I knew all about the field.  I only knew one part of it. 

Wooden’s first advice is to remember your roots.  I come from a midwestern Scandinavian family where people solve their own problems and don’t ask for help and where the culture is to conform.  Despite that I am competitive, I am an introvert.  Like Wooden, you would not have picked me as the person (at 5’3″) to stand in front of strong-willed women and tell them what to do.   So at first, of course, I made a lot of mistakes.  I had to overcome the culture of conformity I grew up in to lead American, female, anti-violence advocates who have strong personalities and all feel their way is the best and only way and are inherently against “the system” in an industry that blames men for the reason it needs to exist.  Wow.  I  think I shrunk a few inches.

His next advice is to compete only against yourself.  competing against others only makes you focus on them and their goals and makes you lose sight of your goals.  This fits so much better in a non-profit such as ours.  I came into the center feeling I had to compete with other like agencies for funding, the ability to offer services, and attention.  Really, we just need to improve how we support victims, how we can advocate for improved laws and access to services, and how I can better train people to be the best they can be for this extremely difficult field. 

Hold your head high is his next advice.  How does this apply to us?  My staff gets lambasted every where they go, sometimes met with suspicion, sometimes disbelieved and belittled, or mostly just ignored.  The reality of sexual violence in our culture is still too hard to believe, too hard to take seriously, and the statistics too close to home.  It can be daunting to always want to go out and be a winner, to dismiss the negative feedback.  I often feel crushed by the weight of what I experience from the community, even from the allies.  His statement:  “when you give your total effort-everything you have-the score can never make you a loser.  And when you do less, it can’t somehow magically turn you into a winner.”   Well, that’s pretty profound.  His point that winning is a by-product is so true.  What are we really winning?  It’s the absence of something – violence.  So I need to focus on the effort we put toward capturing the presence of safety.   Of course, the ineffiablility of safety is another blog post. 

He points out that with this philosophy, really only you know if you succeed.  That is so true.  Our markers are so personal at times, winning that court case, helping that one person, gaining that one funding opportunity.  Some of our gains we can’t even talk about due to confidentiality concerns.  We have to believe in our own success and therefore recognize it.  Our industry is built on the reaction to the crisis of violence.  It is so hard to not operate as if we are in cisis all the time. 

So the first rule to live by is: I must be able to lead myself before I can lead others.  Funny, now that I have a defined board that are leaders themselves, I actually feel that I can do it now.  Through their leadership of me, I can lead myself, and lead others. 

That was just the introduction.  I’ll write more on my experience of the book. 

Related Articles

• Legislative Action Day (rcasa.wordpress.com)
• Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month (preventviolence.wordpress.com)
• Tuesday Prevention: Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month (rcasa.wordpress.com)
• this new year… (rcasa.wordpress.com)
• Lobby Day for Sexual and Domestic Violence Victims (preventviolence.wordpress.com)
• Lobbying for Victims Rights in Virginia (leadingcarol.wordpress.com)
• Lobby Day is for everyone – get your lobby out! (arttherapyblog.wordpress.com)
• RCASA Friday Facts: Barriers to Native American Women Seeking Help Part 1 (rcasa.wordpress.com)

Today is lobby day for our industry.  I’m heading down to the General Assembly to advocate.  I like doing  this every year.  The energy of everyone running around, trying to get appointments in, trying to meet people, trying to educate legislators and their staff on our issues.  This year it’s:

Protect funding for sexual and domestic violence services from further cuts.  In the past year, Virginia cut funding for sexual violence services by 5%, domestic violence services by 8%, and homlessness intervention services by 8%.  We need to protect and preserve these critical services.

Support: HB 2422 & SB 1364 – Expand access to Protective Orders for victims of dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault.  Address and name dating violence in the Code of Virginia and allow equal access to court-ordered protection for all victims of certain defined acts of violence and threatening behaviors, to prevent further acts of violence, trespass, or contact.

Support: HB 1757 & SB 1199 – Extend the Address Confidentiality Program within the Office of the Attorney General to make it statewide.

Oppose HB 1420, HB 1421, HB 1430, HB 1934 & HB 2332 – Oppose legislation that threatens access to safety for any victim of sexual and domestic violence.  Oppose these house bills and preserve access to services for ALL victims of sexual and domestic violence in Virgnia, regardless of their immigration status.

Victims of sexual and domestic violence and their children must be able to access safety, including law enforcement, the courts and protections available through the Violence Against Women Act, without regard to their immigration status.

Support: HB 1476 & SB 1145 – extend limitations period for actions for sexual abuse committed during the infancy or incapacity of the abused person from two years to 8 years from the time of removal from infancy or incapacity or from the time the cause of action otherwise occurs.

Support HB 1893 – Abduction; provides that any person who, without legal justification or excuse, recruits, entices, solicits, seizes, takes, transport, detains a child under 16 years of age, for the purpose of concubinage or prostitution, is guilty of a Class 2 felony, and that the person who assists or aids in such activity or threatens to do so is guilty of a Class 5 felony, and that the abduction of any person 16 years of age or older for the person of concubinage or prostitution is punishable as a Class 4 felony.  The bill also provides that any person who causes another person to engage in forces labor or services in violation of abduction laws is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

Support HB 1898 - Commercial Sex Acts with Minors; expands teh definition of abduction to include commercial sexual activity involving minors and for purposes of sexual activity with a minor to also include pornography and sexual performances.

Support HB 2440 – Provides for an affirmative defense to the crime of prostitution when the person arrested or charged was induced to engage in prostitution through the use of force, intimidation, or deception by another.  The bill also provides for the expungement of a prostitution charge when the person was induced to engage in prostitution through the use of force, intimidation, or deception by another.

I run a rape crisis center but am dedicated to ending all violence against individuals.  I support the Domestic Violence agencies and advocacy groups as siblings in the efforts to end violence and create safer communities.  What do you do? 

The roots of the Domestic Violence Awareness Month evolved from the “Day of Unity” established in 1981.  This day established by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence helped unify the efforts of advocates across the nation who worked to end violence against women.  The Day of Unity spread to a week of activities hosted by local, state, and national groups.  In 1987, the week grew to a month of dedicated observance.  While the range of activities has diversified, the common theme is to mourn those who have died because of domestic violence, celebrate those who survived and working to end violence together.  Each year, the Day of Unity is celebrated the first Monday of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

What is Domestic Violence? Domestic violence is best understood as a pattern of abusive behaviors — including physical, sexual, and psychological attacks as well as economic coercion — used by one intimate partner against another (adult or adolescent) to gain, maintain, or regain power and control in the relationship. Batterers use of a range of tactics to frighten, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, often injure, and sometimes kill a current or former intimate partner.

Domestic Violence in our Community:

During the 2008 fiscal year, the YWCA of Richmond provided 9,502 nights of shelter to 225 women and children.

• Each year 1.5 million women  are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner. (U.S. Department of Justice, 2000)

• In 2004, about 1 in 250 households included a member victimized by an intimate partner, such as a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004)

• Intimate partner violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and 1,300 deaths nationwide every year.  (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003)

• Fifty to 70 percent of men who abuse women also abuse children. (National Coalition of Domestic Violence, 1999)

• Children exposed to domestic violence at home have a significant risk of ever-increasing harm to their physical, emotional and social development and they tend not to do as well in school. (UNICEF and The Body Shop, 2006)

Where to get help

 The Richmond YWCA has a 24-hour hotline for free crisis intervention, emergency shelter, counseling and support   www.ywcarichmond.org 804-643-0888

National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE [7233] or TTY 1-800-787-3224 help is available to callers 24 hours a day,

The National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline www.loveisrespect.org, 1-866-331-9474 or TTY 1-866-331-8453 provides help and resources, including confidential online support, for teens who are concerned about what is going on in their relationships.

http://dvam.vawnet.org – provides more information.

 During an attack (from the YWCA website)

• Call the police as soon as your partner becomes abusive – dial 911. Tell the person who answers the phone that you are being beaten and that you need immediate help. Give them your name and address.
• Try not to let the batterer trap you in the kitchen (too many potential weapons) or the bathroom (too many hard surfaces).
• Do not threaten him with a weapon – it can easily be turned against you.
• Try to proceed with your escape plan.

Upcoming events in Fredericksburg – Show your support and learn how to help

Check www.rcasa.org/events for more information

October 12 - Stop by RCDV’s candlelight vigil at St. Episcopal Church in King George and support DV awareness.  Visit RCASA’s table and see what services for survivors we have.

October 16 -  Visit RCASA’s booth at the Caroline County Harvest Festival.

October 27-29 - RCASA is collaborating with SAVE and RCDV on The Red Flag Campaign – a campus focused campaign implemented in Virginia by the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance to highlight safety in interpersonal relationships.

October 27 – Rappahannock Council Against Sexual Assault, in collaboration with the University of Mary Washington and Student Anti-Violence Educators (SAVE) is hosting a movie showing of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at the Dodd Auditorium.  6pm  Following the movie showing a discussion group will be led by Dr. Zukor, Chris Kilmartin, and Carol Olson

October 28 – SAVE is taking safety to your medical health as well, stop by the UMW Flu Shot Clinic and pick up information on safe dating and sexual assault prevention.

Upcoming events in Richmond – Show your support and learn how to help

October 1, 8, 15, 22, & 29 Community Chest Night at Capital Ale House. Sponsored by Capital Ale House at any Capital Ale House in Richmond Area any Thursday in October from 5pm-10pm. Bring this flier http://www.capitalalehouse.com/documents/SafeHarbor.pdf and the Capital Ale House will donate 25% of your food sales to Safe Harbor. Join us for a good time AND a good cause. Contact Mary Maupai for more information at 804-249-9470x 12.

Hosted by the Richmond Police Department Community Partnership for Domestic Violence Awareness, the Journey For Justice event is to help raise awareness about domestic violence.

Thursday, October 7: The 3rd annual Journey For Justice event begins at 6 p.m. at Byrd Park with a candle light vigil to mourn those who have died as a result of domestic violence.

Friday, Oct. 8th: The Domestic Violence Forum will be held at 6 p.m. at Cedar Street Baptist Church, 2301 Cedar St.

Saturday, Oct. 9: The Journey For Justice 5k Walk will be held at the Byrd Park Roundhouse, 2800 Trafford Rd., from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

For more information about these events, contact Richmond Police Sgt. Carol Adams at 804.646.4105.

October 9 1st Annual Empowerment Tour Sponsored by Lyrically Inspired, Inc. 7:30pm at Byrd Theatre, 2908 West Cary Street, Richmond. This show will be comprised of spoken word, fashion and theatre as an avenue to bring awareness to the epidemic of domestic violence. Nationally renowned spoken word artists will empower attendees with words while fashions from featured designers such as Michael Taylor Couture will grace the stage. An ongoing theatrical performance will tie both the words of empowerment and sophisticated style together in order to educate the audience about the epidemic of domestic violence and to empower them as well. This show will be hosted by Poet from Washington, D.C.’s radio station WPCG 95.5 accompanied by DJ Lonnie B of Power 92.1. For more information contact Stacie Vecchietti at 804-249-9470 15.

October 13 Henrico County DV Awareness Month Proclamation Sponsored by The Henrico Board of Supervisors 7pm Board Room within the Administration Building, Henrico County Government Center, 4301 East Parham Rd. Richmond. At the Henrico Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board will be presenting the county proclamation designating October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. We want to PACK THE HOUSE to make sure our local representatives get the message that domestic violence is an issue that the community is deeply vested in, so bring your friends and family members. For more information contact Angela Verdery at 804-249-9470 16.

October 16, 2010 At the University of Richmond from 2pm-5pm a free workshop entitled “What Have We Learned? A Reality-Based Approach to Addressing Domestic Violence Through the Law.”  Professor Diane Rosenfeld, Lecturer at Harvard Law School, discusses with other experts progressive legal initiatives to better and more realistically address the persistent social problem of domestic violence. This program is sponsored by the University Of Richmond Journal Of Law and the Public Interest and the University of Richmond School of Law’s 16th Annual Austin Owen Lecture. For more information, see UR or call (804) 289-8740 (option 3).

October 17 Hands On Day, Sponsored by Hands On Greater Richmond. 10am at Safe Harbor. HandsOn Greater Richmond is sponsoring this impressive day-long effort that includes over 40 different service projects (of which Safe Harbor is one) and as many as 1000 community volunteers. Up to 15 of these volunteers will be working at the house to continue the painting, maintenance, and cleaning that have begun over the past few months. If you are interested in participating, you can sign up via the HandsOn Greater Richmond website. For more information contact Stacie Vecchietti at 804-249-9470 x15.

October 19th – 23rd Clothesline Project, Sponsored by Safe Harbor. Will be hanging in display throughout the week. The Clothesline Project is a visual display of shirts with graphic messages and illustrations that have been designed by women survivors of violence or by someone who love a woman who has been killed. The purpose of the Project is to increase awareness of the impact of violence against women, to celebrate a woman’s strength to survive and to provide another avenue for her to courageously break the silence that often surrounds her experience. For more information contact Stacie Vecchietti at 804-249-9470 x15.

October 23 Resource Event for Allied Professionals and Community Members Sponsored by The Henrico Police Division of Police and Safe Harbor. 9am-12pm Henrico Training Center, 7701 E. Parham Road, Richmond. The Henrico Police Division of Police and Safe Harbor are partnering to host a resource fair for all agencies, organizations, and individuals who interact with survivors of intimate partner violence and/or their children. Each participant will have an opportunity to share throughout the course of the morning about the resources that they provide to survivors and/or their children. For more information contact Stacie Vecchietti at 804-249-9470 x15.

October 29th The YWCA of Richmond is hosting the 14th annual Remember My Name Memorial to commemorate the lives of individuals in our community who have died from domestic violence. The memorial will be held on October 29th at 7 pm at the Monument Heights Baptist Church. This nondenominational service commemorates those in the Greater Richmond and surrounding areas who have lost their lives due to domestic violence. During the ceremony, families, friends and community leaders will have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the victims or give testimonies about how domestic violence has affected their lives. This event is free and open to the public. For information about submitting a name to the memorial or general information about Remember My Name, please contact Lauren Rosati at 804-643-6761, ext. 116 or lrosati@ywcarichmond.org.

Check out The Action Alliance (http://www.vadv.org/secProjects/DVAMcalendar.html) for more events in neighboring counties and cities.

Related Articles

• “The Private Hell Of Domestic Violence” and related posts (feministpeacenetwork.org)
• Cheryl Saban: Unlearning Violence – It’s about Education (huffingtonpost.com)