Author: Lisa Kays

Welding a new world for girls.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Check this out.  In Vermont, girls are being trained in welding as part of a three week camp, Rosie’s Girls, and are talking about how much it’s raising their self-esteem and confidence.

"If I can do this, I can do that, too," one girl says in this video.

Looks like these girls, along with the women of the YWCA National Capital Area’s WAWIT program–and others placing women in nontraditional careers–are truly welding a new world for women in more ways than one.

To learn more about similar programs The Women’s Foundation is supporting in our region, check out our posts on Goodwill of Greater Washington’s female construction and environmental services programs.

Then, join us in welding a new world for women by investing in and expanding strategies and programs like these here in the Washington metropolitan region. 

 Come on, you know you want to.  All the cool girls are doing it. 

Are you on a philanthromission?

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Does your philanthropy begin with the end in mind?  

That’s the question Philanthromedia asked this month, urging readers–and particularly families who give together–to be strategic, thoughtful and deliberate in their philanthropic decision-making by starting with a mission statement or a vision for their giving.

"Giving is an act of faith," writes Robert.  "Givers believe that while they may only be able to make a small dent in our community’s, country’s or world’s problems, the sum of our good acts will make a larger difference. If more people would be strategic in their approaches, then the outcome of their individual and collective efforts might be more effective."

Much like we learned at Philanthropy 101 not too long ago. 

And not unlike what the speakers at this year’s Philanthropy Forum (check out page 4 of our latest Community Update) have learned to be true, that, "It is necessary to give, but it is more necessary to know how to give."

So, with that in mind, what’s your philanthromission, or your givision, if you were the type to make up words?  

What are the guiding values and strategy behind your giving?  Do you have one?  Do you know what you hope that you, or your family, or your company might achieve through its giving over the course of a year, 10 years, a lifetime?

If you do have one, how has it impacted your giving and its impact? 

Because doing so, whether you have $10, or $10 million to give each year, will not only help you focus and make your giving more effective, but it can consistently increase the satisfaction you gain from it–and therefore your inclination to keep it up.

Which is, of course, the power of giving in itself, as Claudia Thorne has so aptly explained, as "the miracle of transformation taking place in the heart and mind of the giver who is living authentically from their personal value system—what really matters to them."

You probably have a plan for your vacation, and a financial planner for your retirement, and possibly you had a wedding planner, and may even be thinking about a life coach.  You most likely to know why you work, what you’re working towards, what your savings goals are and what you hope your life might look like 1, 5, 10, 15 years from now. 

And if not, you’re perhaps planning how to figure that stuff out.  Because these plans are a reflection of who you are, of how you see yourself in the world. 

Why not throw into the mix, as you think about your goals and a mission for all these other areas of your life–getting started on your philanthropic mission?  On understanding what you want to achieve through your giving?  

So that you can give with the outcome in mind.   

Hillaryland, and you and me.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

However you feel about Hillary, it’s hard to deny that she represents far more than a Democratic bid for the presidency at every possible level. 

Love her or hate her, love her and hate her, even just feel a little lukewarm (Okay, noone feels that way), whatever your inclination, Hillary, and how she is treated in the media, as a candidate, by women, by everyone, mirrors back how uncomfortable or comfortable we are–as a nation, as women–with women’s leadership at the highest levels.

While certainly the controversial nature of her candidacy in itself is a variable in this election and in the discourse around her, we would be wise to truly ask ourselves–consistently and throughout her candidacy (and potential presidency)–if that is really the issue when we are speaking, reading or learning about her.

If we are truly talking about Hillary–or if we are talking about women’s leadership or about Hillary as a woman candidate.  It is an important distinction, and one we would all be well-served to ask ourselves, whatever side of the aisle we sit on.

Over the past few weeks, a number of articles and blogs have brought this home, raising issues not only about Hillary, but about women’s leadership in general.

The Washington Post article, Gatekeepers of Hillaryland, described her campaign, and its primarily female cadres of staffers and advisors self-titled as "Hillaryland." 

AlterNet featured a piece showcasing "What Women See When They See Hillary" that discusses how some feminists feel about Hillary, and how, and why, feelings have shifted over time. 

Feministing ran a post on "Female candidates and women’s issues" on the double standard that impacts women leaders, who can be labeled as too soft for focusing on women’s issues, or too "mannish" if they focus on things like national security. 

Reinvention featured a post along the same lines, addressing three "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" contradictions that face women leaders in business–and certainly apply to those in politics.

On yet another dichotomous note, Feministing then describes how "Hillary faces dowdy/whore dichotomy," asking whether America can tolerate female leaders and politicians who flaunt their feminine, sexual sides. 

All of this begs a few questions:

1.  One female blogger notes:  "This Washington Post article calls her campaign Hillaryland.  That name doesn’t bode well with me. I smell sexism. You never hear them saying Guillianiworld or Romneyville. Hillary’s campaign is groundbreaking. The media needs to show it some respect."

I find myself agreeing, because I think she’s right.

But then I remember that Hilaryland is self-titled, not media appropriated.  The campaign is calling itself this, and, as many are speculating, possibly pitching articles like these to soften and humanize Hillary. 

I want to know why.  Because it seems rather, well, frankly, un-Hillary-esque in terms of her actual leadership style. 

Perhaps getting back to that whole damned if you do, damned if you don’t issue referenced above. 

Maybe by boxing Hillary’s campaign away into an image conjuring a happy, safe place, like, say, Disneyland–even if just through language–the campaign is thinking that we’ll all be a little more comfortable with the idea of a Hillary remaining within some semblance of a contained, private, secret space.  Even a home. 

But, at what cost?  Will keeping Hillary tied to the concept of home lead her to the ultimate one, the White House? 

Because generally, do we expect that kind of thing of candidates?  That softening, humanizing, a return to the hearth to prove their validity to lead? 

Of male candidates it seems we typically ask the opposite, for military service, decisiveness, strength. 

2.  Which leads me to my second question:  When will women be able to stand alone as leaders, separate from their being a woman? To be seen for their own unique leadership styles, rather than as emblems of the typical perceived framework of women’s leadership?

We don’t discuss Barack or Bush within a framework of how their being men–and being advised primarily by men–influences their decision-making.

So with Hillary, we are then choosing not a leader among leaders, but between two options–women’s leadership and men’s.  More than likely, I think, a false choice. 

3.  Largely because I’m not sure that women’s leadership even exists.  Yes, women lead.  Yes, women can and should hold power.

But is there a monolithic mandate on women’s leadership and how it operates? 

We don’t discuss male leadership as an overarching theme of male leaders.  We view them as individual leaders. 

So, on that note, is it fair, effective or wise to ever consider "women’s leadership" as a concept? 

4.  I’m not sure, but I do know that one bothersome offshoot of this occurs in how Hillary is treated in the media, well documented by WIMN’s Voices in their post, "When Does Wife Trump Senator?" which documents how often the media refers to Hillary as the wife of the former president (and often, I might add, in light of needing his support.), and leaving off her title as "Senator" and, often, even her last name. 

Meaning that we’re more likely to perceive her first as a women, and secondly as a leader. 

5.  Which leads to the central question that surrounds Senator Clinton’s candidacy for me–and, I sense, for a lot of women: 

Do I, as a woman, as an advocate for women’s leadership, rights and equality, evaluate her based on her leadership alone, and compare her, genderless, just as I would any of the other candidates? 

Or do I evaluate her based on the fact that she’s a woman, and what her election would mean for women generally, and for women leaders? 

I ran across this statement, from a male blogger, commenting on the article:  "One upside of a Hillary presidency would be the totally unprecedented amount of women that would move into positions of real power. This can’t be discounted when considered the merits of Clinton’s campaign."

An undeniable truth. 

So, my quandary is clear–because I want Senator Clinton to be evaluated on her own merits.  As a leader among leaders, not as a woman among leaders, or as a chance we’re all taking that will reflect on every woman in this country, on every future bid for leadership or candidacy. 

I’d like for her to just be a candidate, standing in line with other candidates, equal. 

But at the same time, I know that’s ridiculous.  She is clearly a woman, a woman candidate, a woman leader.  Potentially the first at this level.  And as such, is evaluated that way. 

I’m left with the thought I always come back to, of sitting in villages in Africa, talking with young girls and women about the importance of role models.  Of writing a calendar showing women as parliamentarians, journalists, doctors, judges.

So that the girls would know that it was possible, that they could reach for more.  That it wasn’t bizarre, or weird, or strange for them to want these things.  To expect them.

That it was normal. 

And I think about my third grade teacher writing a note to my sister saying, "Maybe we’ll be able to vote for Lisa for president some day."  (I was a terribly precocious third grader.)

And how she got that note when I was old enough to know how unlikely that was, because we weren’t there yet, because that was something for the future, for way off.

Something to talk about in terms not of "when" or "who" but in terms of debating how many years it might take, when the country might be ready, when it wouldn’t be bizarre, or strange for me, as a girl, to aspire to that.  

And now, I think, much like it has already come to pass in other countries throughout the world (and, in recent news, India!), the future could really be now. 

Women, keep your eye on the blog.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

I think the first time I was told to keep my eye on the ball was by my father, when I took up the very challenging sport of tee ball.  Then it was golf, and then soccer.

I’m not sure quite what that says about my soccer skills, but for the rest, it seemed to make sense. 

Keep your eye on the ball, and you’d be able to swing with confidence, make a solid connection, have the greatest impact and go the longest distance.

Unless you’re putting, in which case, that’s not your goal.  But that’s not really the point.

The point is that the reasons for keeping my eye on the ball during my young, athletic (er, well, young anyway) years are very similar to those that I offer when people ask me why I’m obsessed with blogging–and particularly blogging on women’s issues.

Largely because I agree with Jay Rosen when he calls blogs "little first amendment machines" and with Digby when she notes that "bloggers are part of a revolutionary participatory democracy."

Because I think they hold the power to unleash great impact through solid connections. 

To me, blogging is becoming, and will continue to emerge as one of the greatest, most accessible forums in which women and girls can offer, connect with, learn from and disseminate their own voices and perspectives, in a media landscape where all too often, these viewpoints are not at the forefront.

Or anywhere at all.

As Christine Cupaiuolo writes, "The under-representation of women is industry-wide and shockingly tolerated.  The question we ask is: where are the women, where are the women and men of color in our media?" 

Good question, and one I’ve asked before.  And I can’t help but sometimes answer it with, in the blogosphere.  Where nearly half of those publishing are women.

Blogging is the great equalizer, I often find myself saying, where pretty much anyone can have a voice, regardless of income or access to the nation’s top editors and media companies.  The Internet is, to me, truly a marketplace of ideas, where the best slowly bubble up to the top, and the rest sink to the bottom. 

And, most importantly, the conversation is two-way–with readers commenting on what has been written, and, in turn, becoming writers themselves. 

An empowering notion, this one of conversation.  It harkens back to me of my first day in college where professor after professor explained that true learning does not occur when an expert stands up and delivers knowledge without refute, but when scholars come together to converse and share ideas.

A model that is not only effective in the classroom, but for activism as well.  Like keeping your eye on the ball, it tends to get impact.  Moveon.org’s Adam Green says, "Bloggers should be seen as activists and strategic partners. Blogs are so effective because they band together as a community and are able to make news that way." 

One shining example of how this is working particularly well for women is documented by Sheila Gibbons in  "News your can relate to?  Try your local ‘Placeblog.’"  She explains, "Women are creating "placeblogs," or online information sites abuzz with hyper-local news and commentary.  Their creations have the potential to offset deficiencies in the way news organizations depict women…Women have embraced this new media platform…How refreshing to…avoid a daily dose of Paris Hilton’s antics, what Nancy Pelosi and Queen Elizabeth II are wearing on their rounds…How pathetic that traditional media focus on these things and not on the basics that animate women or, for that matter, men, who are flocking to placeblogs in nearly the same numbers as women."

For different ideas, dialogue, opinions and perspectives than those that are being covered by the traditional, male-dominated media.

And begging the question, what would our media, and our world, look like, if it were framed and produced largely by women? 

What would the current debate and policy on HPV look like if the dialogue and decision-making were shaped entirely by the women who would be receiving the vaccine?  What would labor law and paid time off and workplace child care look like if shaped by women–the vast majority of those doing the caretaking of children and working to make ends meet–often as single heads of households?  How would the news around the next presidential race–with its first serious female contender–look different?

For the answer, I tend to say, look no further than the blogosphere.

For now, and certainly in the future.

It’s not perfect, by any means.  For now, according to recent data, when it comes to who is being cited, quoted and referenced in blogs by serious news outlets:

  • More males (88%) are mentioned in the articles than females (12%);
  • Males are mentioned multiple times in the same article more often than females;
  • Males are mentioned earlier in the articles than females; and,
  • Males are more likely to be mentioned by name than females.

But, due to the community, collaborative, conversational nature of the blogosphere myself, I have far greater hope that this will change there, first, than in the traditional news media.  Because as legitimate holders in half of the real estate–and the ability and access to claim far, far more (Write on, women!)–on the blogosphere, with a commitment to citing, commenting, referencing and elevating each other’s ideas and perspectives, I’ve no doubt that these statistics can be dramatically altered.

As long as we keep our eye on the blog.     

At a meeting last week with a group of Grantee Partners where we discussed our blog, one of the participants quoted her daughter, who had said, "We all have to walk into the future."

My sense is very much that, for women, and minority populations everywhere, that will mean opening the door on the blogosphere. 

My sense is that by keeping our eye on the blog, we could very well be headed for a slam dunk for women’s voices, perspectives, ideas and issues.

As long as we continue to step up to the plate.   

Ready to take a swing?  The Women’s Foundation’s blog is committed to diversity and welcomes submissions from across our community–and beyond–related to raising the voices of women and girls.  Got an idea?  Email me.  (I’m friendly, I promise.)

Congratulations to Tahirih Justice Center!

Posted on by Lisa Kays

When The Women’s Foundation writes a check from the Open Door Capacity Building Fund or gives a Leadership LayliAward, it’s an investment in a nonprofit’s future and their potential to positively impact women, girls and our community as a whole.

So when two of this year’s five Washington Post Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management finalists–and one of the winners–were Grantee Partners of The Women’s Foundation, we couldn’t help but think of this recognition as a deserved acknowledgement of the importance of their work and of investing in the capacity of local nonprofits.

The Women’s Foundation congratulates Tahirih Justice Center, winner of the 2007 Washington Post Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management! Tahirih addresses the needs of immigrant women and girls fleeing gender-based violence through direct legal service, advocacy, social and medical referrals and public education.

Tahirih was recognized for, among other things, their short and long-term strategic planning, use of market research and impact assessment, approach to staff workload and cultural sensitivity.

"There’s no question that Tahirih Justice Center’s programs and services are vital to our community," Carolee Summers-Sparks, Program Officer, said. "I’m proud that The Women’s Foundation has supported their work, and equally proud that we’ve invested in projects to build the strength of the organization."

The Women’s Foundation’s support of The Tahirih Justice Center began in 2002, when they received a Leadership Award, a V-Day Grant, and a Rapid Response Fund grant. In 2004, they were awarded their first of two Open Door grants.  In all, The Women’s Foundation has invested $40,000 in Tahirih and their work.

Activities supported by these grants include a three-day staff training and retreat aimed at reducing stress and building unity to prevent turnover, to a database for strategic donor engagement, complete with trainings for board and staff on fundraising strategies.

One of the trainings funded by The Women’s Foundation was specifically featured in Tahirih’s application and recognized by the award selection committee, Allyn Summa, Tahirih’s Director of Development and Communications, said.

"The Women’s Foundation has historically been one of the few organizations that many nonprofits in this area can turn to for capacity building grants," Summa continued. "We’ve relied upon The Women’s Foundation for that, and it’s vital. It’s those things that enable effective management, thoughtful planning and efficient use of time. That’s part of the reason we’ve beeen so grateful to The Women’s Foundation."

The Women’s Foundation also congratulates the other finalists, including Boat People SOS, one of this year’s four finalists for the Washington Post award, a Grantee Partner since 2001 when they received a Rapid Response Fund grant for $8,000.

Both of these organizations–along with every Grantee Partner–represents the value of The Women’s Foundation’s commitment to investing in "beyond the check" grantmaking, and to providing technical assistance and support for their operational goals as well as programmatic funding.

To learn more about how you can get involved in giving beyond the check, click here, and join us.

Photo by Michael Colella.

News and Views: Week of June 25, 2007

Posted on by Lisa Kays

See below for a round-up of what was news this week in the world of philanthropy, social change and women and girls in the Washington metropolitan region and beyond:

In the spirit of our previous conversations on the wage-gap, AlterNet asks in a book review, "Why do we pay our plumbers more than our caregivers?"  Excellent question. 

And on a similar note, Andrea Learned asks, "Philanthropy: Administered by Men, Driven by Women?", where she considers that, "Steeped in established protocols and tradition, philanthropy may well be the final frontier for proving the women’s market worth (literally and figuratively)," which she notes, is ironic given that "charity really begins with women."

Tactical Philanthropy reminds us that we don’t necessarily have to choose in the debate between "Nonprofits vs. For Profits."

Which brings us to Trent Stamp’s review of the debate between whether high school students should be required to work without profit–and volunteer–in his post, "Would mandatory service breed resentment, or more volunteers?"

Lucy Bernholz confesses to being a geek and asks, "Why is philanthropic analysis so different?, proposing a means of thinking and doing for philanthropy that could "revolutionize the work of typical foundation program officers."  Nisha and Carolee, are you ready?

On a nonprofit relational note, Trent Stamp calls The Urban Institute’s new study on what’s going on between charities and their boards "wildly interesting" and recommends a cool article from Money magazine on how donors and volunteers can make the most of their time and money.  Sounds like a great addition to Philanthropy 101 to me!   

And speaking of money, the Native Financial Education Coalition hosted a briefing in Washington, D.C. regarding the low financial literacy of Native American youth and offered key recommendations to address the problem. 

On the heels of previous discussion around the influence (or over-influence?) of wealth and philanthropy on decision-making, as well as a reminder about the tension in Pittsburgh that followed a decision by the Heinz Foundation, a story emerges from New York about how "Patrons’ Sway Leads to Friction in Charter School."  Frederick Hess, an expert on philanthropy and education, predicts that this could be an on-going trend.  "There would be more disputes like the one in Brooklyn as high-profile donors invest their reputations in schools and face ‘the enormous kind of name-brand question.’”

Feministing adds a new perspective to the immigration bill, noting that it would potentially put women immigrants in the precarious situation of having to decide between domestic violence and deportation. 

Google sets out to help non-profits with maps, by offering a program that would allow causes to demonstrate visually for donors and supports that, for instance, there is fire and war ravaging specific villages or to see the devastation of a natural disaster.  We all know how much I love Google, but my questions is this: how do you show the effects of poverty–and its disproportionate impact on women–on a map?  Seems it’s already easier to get funding for disaster and relief efforts than for sustained development and anti-poverty ones–as noted by how the "Absense of a Major Disaster in ’06 Affected Giving."  The article reports, "Since 2002, the percentage of overall giving to human services charities has been declining. The exception was 2005, when gifts increased, perhaps as a result of the overall increase driven by disaster giving."  So, Google, get on that poverty visual, okay?  (See also "Americans set record for charity in 2006" for more on that breakdown.)

And that’s it for your weekly round-up.  Have a great pre-Independence Day weekend and don’t forget to start things off by celebrating your freedom of speech with a few comments and notes on the blog!   

WOW, a cool new economic security tool!

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW) (a Grantee Partner) just released a very cool new tool for our region: the WOW calculatorD.C. Metro Area Self-sufficiency Calculator.

With funding from the Freddie Mac Foundation, WOW created the calculator to serve as "an online career and financial counseling tool that will help thousands of the region’s most vulnerable families move out of poverty and gain financial independence," WOW’s press release explains.

It works like this:  "The Self Sufficiency calculator is more than a tool; it offers concrete strategies in moving on a path to prosperity for the whole family while providing benchmarks and outcome information that will inform policy and practice from housing to workforce strategies…by helping struggling parents compute their earned wages and develop a financial savings plan to meet their families’ basic needs."

It will be made available, and used by, "several hundred local government agencies, nonprofits, libraries, and other organizations to help educate families about the cost of living in the District and throughout the region, how their current income compares to their specific self-sufficiency wage, and how to use the calculator to map out a plan for short and long term financial independence."

Women, and particularly single mothers, are the most economically vulnerable population in our region, and therefore have a tremendous amount to gain from this tool, and the research behind it. 

The use of this tool to link low-income women in our region to better paying, more stable jobs and to save towards their family’s economic security will no doubt greatly impact a vast number of children, families and our community as a whole in a positive way.

Now, that really adds up!

To learn more:
WOW press release
DC Metro Area Self-sufficiency Calculator
WOW Web site

Safety first, street harrassment never.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

When the Washington City Paper ran a cover story this week called, "Nice ass!: Not even grandmas are safe from D.C.’s street harrassers," I picked it up, and then read about it again on the blogosphere.

Where, I must admit, I was a bit shocked by the criticism the authors took for it, particularly in reference to Kimberly Klinger’s companion pieces, "I’ve Got Your ‘Hey Baby!’ Right Here" and "Diary of a Catcall Hater."  Because even after reading Feministing’s critical take on the pieces, I was still left with the same feeling, that regardless of the potentially racist undertones or naivety and varying degrees of sensitivity of the reporter, I was glad it was documented.

And honestly. 

Because to me, what is important (and harmful) about street harrassment has everything to do with its affect on those who are harrassed–the women and girls simply trying to make their way around the city. 

So I appreciated Klinger’s honesty in documenting those affects–the frustration, the growing disrespect, the mistrust, and, yes, potentially, racist sentiments (however illogical she admits they are)–and the ensuing conflict and confusion she feels as a result.

Because they are an honest outshoot and piece of the experience.

And yet another great reason to end it. 

Because the point is that if behavior is unwanted, it should be stopped.  There is no need to discuss it within a framework of race or culture or diversity. 

When women feel unsafe, the behavior is not okay.  Full stop.

I guess I was far less concerned reading the article about the racial undercurrent and discussion, perhaps because I was so busy being horrified by the behavior the women experienced on the streets, and by the sense of entitlement shared by the men who did it, over the women’s reactions, space and sense of self.  A few samplings: 

It’s tough in D.C.  Especially with white girls.  They are stuck up, man.  Bi#@$.

It depends on what she looks like.  If she’s a slut, you have to treat her like a slut.  If she’s not, I say, ‘How you doing young lady?’

"F-you bi#*%, you ugly anyway.’ (Street harrasser to a woman who confronted him.)

The reporter states, "I’m thinking maybe Klinger’s approach is a bit too academic. Contreras seems like a good guy on the lookout for a good woman.  Maybe the shouts are just men trying to pick up women, no different than starting a conversation at a bar, just more…matter-of-fact."

Yeah, no.  And here’s why.  Because at the core of Klinger’s feelings–and the feelings of many of the women interviewed in the article–is not racism, or even mild irritation, but fear: 

I"ve become scared and angry.  And I f-ing hate it…I can’t hate them for any reason connected to their race…I can, however, hate them for the way they disrespect me.

I guess I would [appreciate the compliment] if I weren’t feeling annoyed, threatened, and scared.  The tone of most harrassment is very hostile.  Sometimes it escalates to full-on yelling. 

It hurts, it really does.  It takes away from your self-esteem.  It’s hard to hold my head up when I deal with this on a regular basis. 

The armchair sociologist in me knows it’s all about power–that the men who harrass are just trying to look tough in front of their friends or assert their dominance…but what i hear is all about sex and shame.  Shame on my part, anyway, as I hunch over to hide myself when I hear some jerk tell me what he’d like to do to me.  It’s great fun.

(For more on women’s experiences with street harrassment in D.C., visit Don’t Be Silent: Speak Out Against Street Harrassment in D.C.)

Because a woman in a bar is surrounded by other people, is in a safe zone, and can be said even to perhaps be, by location, making herself available to social interaction with strangers.  To someone wanting to strike up a conversation, and from whom, she can, if she wants, safely extricate herself verbally, and if necessary, with assistance from those around her. 

Walking down the street, alone, is a different experience, and one that makes come ons, pick-ups and catcalls from men you don’t know very different from being approached in a social setting.  It is scary, and puts women in a vulnerable position. 

Something that should not be part of any woman’s life experience, no matter where she is from, where she is walking, or what she is wearing–or what the harrasser intends.  Because a compliment is no longer a compliment if it doesn’t feel good to hear it. 

So I’m glad, as we approach selecting local nonprofits for this year’s Leadership Awards around health and safety, that this issue has been raised and documented locally–in all of its confusion, conflict and ugliness.

Because our Portrait Project revealed among its findings on local women and girls that:

  • Despite the overall decline in violence, local women and girls expressed an alarming sense of personal insecurity.  Vulnerability to violence and lack of personal safety were two of the strongest themes that emerged when women were asked about the issues that affect their lives.
  • More than 22,500 reprots of violence against women were made in 2000 alone in Washington, D.C.
  • That same year, women made up 50 percent of all reported, violent crime victims in the District of Columbia.
  • The rate of reported rapes in Washington, D.C. from 1997-1999 was markedly higher than other jurisdictions and exceeded the national figure. 

As Denise Snyder, executive director of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center–which offers training in dealing with street harrassment [and is a Grantee Partner]–said in a Salon piece, "Too sexy for my shirt", "Women who’ve lived lots of places tell me it’s worse here than anywhere else." 

The article goes on to say, "Quantifying an essentially untraceable phenomenon is extremely difficult, but it’s certainly true that street harassment is a historically controversial topic here.  In 1990, a summer series of three Washington Post articles on street harassment — one journalistic, one essayistic, and one op-ed — caused a firestorm."

And history repeats itself.

I just wish that we could focus on the real root of the problem–the harrassment, and the power imbalances and disrespect for women that it indicates, and on stopping it–than on discussions of how it’s talked about or who is doing it or what it means or whether or not it’s just innocent or if it’s really that damaging.

Because it is.

As Klinger said in her article, "Why should we accept that?  Why can’t I hate that?"

Exactly.  

All issues of race aside, that seems pretty black and white to me.

News and Views: Special June Procrastinator's Edition

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Anyone else feel like they’re meeting themselves coming and going this summer?  Good, then that means you’re as behind on the news, and blogging about it, as I am.  This News and Views then is just for you, as, in the interest of transparency, I’ll admit, it goes back more than a week.  But the issues were worth covering, I thought, even at the risk of my own reputation for steadfast timeliness.  Enjoy!

Now, on to business: See below for a round-up of what was news this week (ahem, past few weeks) in the world of philanthropy, social change and women and girls in the Washington metropolitan region and beyond:

Grantee Partners in the News!

The Washington Times’ Adrianna Washington reported on the graduation of the first class of female tradeswomen from the Washington Area Women in the Trades program in her column, "New tradeswomen off to reconstruct lives."  WAMU also covered the program in a radio story, "From Poverty to Hardhats."  Our blog likewise covered the event, with posts on how this program–and others like it–is welding a new world for women and how they indicate that women are hammering their way to social change, not just another job.

(And it seems the trend isn’t just local.  The Washington Post documents in "The New Artisans," how  tradeswomen in France are emerging to replace men fleeing from the field.)

In "The School of Second Chances," the Washington Post documents the individual success stories emerging from Southeastern University’s programs, and particularly for those who return to school later in life–sometimes after struggling with early pregnancy, addiction or poverty to pursue nontraditional careers.  Southeastern’s President, Charlene Drew Jarvis,  explains, "There is a large pool of what I like to call ‘people of promise,’ who have not had a tradition of college-going in their family, who maybe have very challenging financial situations, basically whose light is under a bushel.  But their promise is shown as soon as they connect to the idea that they can go to college."

A few weeks ago, Southeastern University professor Telaekah Brooks appeared on Smooth Jazz 105.9 FM with The Women’s Foundation’s interim president, Marjorie Sims, to discuss our partnership to create workforce development opportunities for low-income women in our region and the power of women’s philanthropy.  The interview, on Spectrum, will re-air on Sunday for you early birds! 

On Giving

How rich are you?  And how giving?  As I’ve said before, you can find out anything on the Internet, even about your own altruism, a most interesting exercise, says Daniel Handler in his post, "Mo Money, Mo Problems: Lemony Snicket Still Not Ultra Rich."

But then Bill Gates reminds us during his commencement address at Harvard, that that may be the wrong question, because, in the end the real theme is to simply, to stop thinking, and to just give, act, solve.  Nicely summarized by On Philanthropy in their post, "Gates at Harvard: From those to whom much is given, much is expected."

On the Nonprofit World

Youth seems to be the talk of the town lately in philanthropy-ville.  Give and Take highlights an ongoing discussion on whether or not nonprofits should give up on younger donors–of late, no, says Tom Belford, a fundraising expert.

And, on the young front, contrary to some popular wisdom, including some of my own, it appears that "More grads are opting to serve the poor." 

On that note, The Nonprofit Consultant offers a reminder of a quote that gets at the spirit of nonprofit, or social change, work.  He reminds us of Woodrow Wilson’s words, "You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand." 

Then again, according to some, nonprofits can just suck.  Someone else’s words, not mine, and they’ve kicked off quite a debate on nonprofit and philanthropic effectiveness, which is summarized nicely in Give and Take’s "How to measure nonprofit effectiveness" which will drive you over to Tactical Philanthropy, where much of the conversation and commentary took place. 

And really, "Whose Nonprofit Is It Anyway?"  That’s what Nonprofit Connector is asking about the collaborative, and cooperative nature of nonprofits, and how, if you’re not necessarily up for managing the relations between a board of directors and the public trust, you may want to consider a for-profit model for your enterprise.   

On Philanthropy

Worldchanging.com offers an intriguing commentary, "The Future of Philanthropy: Innovation, Networks, Thought Leaders and the Fringe" that I won’t even attempt to summarize.  Let me just say, great questions, interesting discussion, worth checking out. 

On Poverty

Give and Take summarizes a response to a New York plan to help poor families by paying them to complete socially beneficial tasks by asking, "Will New York’s Cash Rewards Hurt the Poor?"  Commenters on the blog offer a different perspective–and a few more news sources covering the issue–from The New York City Hunger Blog. 

Whew.  That’s it for this week(s).  Enjoy and we’ll see you next week for more in what’s new in women’s philanthropy, social change and our region. 

Have a great weekend!

NWEF: Women, write on.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

It seems timely that while I sat in a media training this weekend sponsored by the National Women’s Editorial Forum, a little discussion bubbled up over the blogosphere and elsewhere about the lack of respect granted to women’s voices in the media. 

First, there are the recent studies showing that there is a lack of women and minority-owned media (As of 2006, women of all races owned five percent of the 1,400 commercial broadcast television stations in America, while people of color, who make up 33 percent of the national population [and will be more than 50 percent by 2050), owned 3.6 percent.  For radio, a study released this month shows that women and minorities own six and 7.7 percent of all broadcast radio stations in the country respectively.).

Then, there is the discussion on Katie Couric, and whether she is getting a fair shake as the first female anchor of network television, or whether she’s unfairly being laid blame to the downfall of evening news while her male counterparts consistently push off "real news" to proritize stories like the current one on Paris Hilton’s jail time. 

As a follow-on, Jennifer Pozner is asking whether Mocking Women Journalists is a Prime-time Sport, in her blog about Fox news’ new reality show, Anchorwoman, which will "feature a busty blonde bikini model and former WWE wrestler as an on-air anchor of KYTX Channel 19, a local CBS affiliate in Tyler, Texas." 

And, of course, there has been all the serious talk of late about sexual harrassment prevailing on the blogosphere towards women, and all the flack Siu Lang Panoke (a graduate student at American University), took when she wrote that Economic Status Should Not Hinder Higher Education.  Sadly, some of the reaction didn’t center so much on the arguments she made, but were attacks against her for being a single mother. 

Anyway, you can see where, in the interest of contributing to the part of our mission that is to raise the voices of women and girls, I felt this training–Power Tools for Contemporary Media: Building Women’s Presence in the Commentary Continuum–might be of value.

With fewer than 20 percent of op-eds nationwide written by women, among a number of other stark realities–many of which are referenced above–the National Women’s Editorial Forum "empowers women to engage in, transform and democratize the media landscape and is dedicated to increasing the supply of comentary by women and their participation in the media."

Write on. 

The training brought together talented leaders such as the President of NOW in New Jersey, members of Code Pink and leaders of local organizations such as Ohio’s Hard Hatted Women, among many others.  We were trained up to improve our skills in writing op-eds, creating radio pieces, being interviewed on television and participating to the fullest extent possible in the blogosphere to raise our own voices, and those of the organizations and causes we work for.

(Yes, we are tired.) 

In exchange for motivation and inspiration from the likes of Eleanor Clift, Josephine Reed, Ann Friedman and Laura Rogers,  we were asked simply to write, speak and blog–as individuals and as part of organizations working on behalf of women–on issues of note and importance to women.

An important note for everyone–women, nonprofits, philanthropists, and citizens concerned with and working on behalf of women, girls and better communities–to take the personal reactions we have to the news and what we see in the world around us and to put it into words and out there, for the public, to consider, digest, debate and eventually, act on.

Just as Siobhan noted earlier, there is power in making philanthropy public–particularly for women–and a significant piece of this isn’t just to put our money where our mouths are, but to use every mouth piece available to raise our voices.

A scary challenge, but also an important one.

So women, write on. 

To learn more, or to submit an op-ed as a female voice, or on women’s issues, through the National Women’s Editorial Forum–or one of the state editorial boards in your state (they’ll help you place it)–learn more here.