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. 

As program assistant here at The Women’s Foundation, I get the opportunity to take in grant and award applications such as those for Leadership Awards, where I get a glimpse of what different issues nonprofits are tackling these days.

A good sprinkling address sex trafficking and other forms of human trafficking, bringing home for me how this problem is impacting our community. 

Law enforcement officials in Maryland report that one of the state’s fastest growing crimes is labor and sex trafficking.  WTOP reports about the extent of trafficking in Montgomery County, Maryland   In 2006, police uncovered a possible human trafficking ring in Loudon County, Virginia.  And in Washington, D.C., officials are working with local nonprofits to reduce the amount of sex trafficking.

Human trafficking, defined by Ayuda, a Grantee Partner, is "the recruitment, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining, by any means, of any person for forced labor, slavery, peonage or servitude in any industry or site such as agriculture, construction, prostitution, manufacturing, begging, domestic service or marriage."

As defined by a number of nonprofit groups, human trafficking is modern day slavery. 

And a form of slavery we often think of as occurring outside of our country–let alone our region. 

Ms. Magazine just ran an article on this issue, and it is documented at the Tunnel of Oppression exhibit at the University of Maryland. 

It was at this exhibit that I became aware of the issue of trafficking, even though it has been going on for such a long time.

Polaris Project, another Grantee Partner, provides an estimate of more than 100,000 trafficking victims enslaved in the U.S.

It is sex trafficking specifically that interests me, largely because of its implications for women and girls.

The California nonprofit Captive Daughters offers a daunting estimated figure of two million women and children held in sex trafficking worldwide.

The sex trafficking industry, and I use the word industry because of its pervasiveness, seems to permeate in some way, shape or form all parts of the world. Daunting and astonishing are the only words I can use to describe my reaction to the research I find on this.

Captive Daughters talks about the Philippine’s tour packages. They are all inclusive, including one’s option to purchase sex from a female prostitute working as an entertainer.

PBS’s Frontline has a story on how five women, from Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey, and Hungary, were tricked (in some cases by their friends) into this abusive industry (in exchange for money), and finally managed to escape. The interviews with the women, available online, are saddening and disturbing.

What makes me really angry about all this, besides the pervasiveness and inhumane feeling the process must induce in its victims, is why it’s so prevalent.

It speaks to the priority of the almighty dollar, and the level of sexism, and devaluation of women and children that people still hold worldwide. Not that having more male or female victims makes sex trafficking better or worse, but the industry is disproportionately made up of women and children.

And isn’t this a theme?  Don’t women and children still disproportionately suffer from issues that help make them more vulnerable to trafficking such as poverty, hunger, and physical abuse locally as well as abroad?

Many of the women who get tricked into the sex trade are lied to and promised a new job in the new area they are being taken to. Deborah Finding, team leader of The POPPY Project, talks about what her project does to help female victims of sex trafficking, and steps we can take to reduce in the number of women trafficked.

For one thing, she says there should be greater public awareness. 

I agree, and find a perfect example of how U.S. media has a role to do this but doesn’t.  This week, I learned from CNN and MSNBC more about Lindsay Lohan’s arrest than anything else.

What about the grave issues that are eating away at the life and quality of life of women worldwide?  Why can’t we talk about these more? Why can’t the stories of those five women from the Frontline special be the hot topic of the news for two days in a row?

So, until the media does a better job of raising the voices and issues of women and girls, we can all start by learning more about how we can prevent and report human trafficking in the U.S.

There are individuals, groups, and great nonprofits in the U.S. and abroad educating on and working with victims of sex trafficking, but they need more support and recognition–and I’m left wondering how this will come about when there is so little information circulating about these realities.

My sense is that if this isn’t going to be a regular national media story, it falls upon us to continue to learn what we can, to act individually and support the local nonprofits tackling this issue, and to continue to support–together–the local organizations working to prevent and combat this phenomenon.

In our region, The Women’s Foundation is supporting Grantee Partners that are tackling human trafficking occurring right in our backyard.  They include:  Ayuda, Polaris Project (through their Greater DC Trafficking Intervention Program), CASA of Maryland and Tahirih Justice Center.

The following is the sixth post in a series covering aspects and angles on the DC Women’s Agenda’s recent white paper, Voices and Choices for D.C. Women and Girls: Recommendations for City Leaders 2007. The DC Women’s Agenda promotes the advancement, equality and well-being of women in D.C. This series of blogs is an extension of a very important proposal of recommendations to city leaders to truly make tangible changes in the Washington metropolitan area.

It is outrageous that the top killer of women in Washington, D.C.–heart disease–can be prevented, in many cases, by simple education about healthy eating habits and lifestyle choices. 

And yet, preventative education is often overlooked as a core strategy in improving our nation’s health care system.  Even Michael Moore’s recent documentary, Sicko, which documents how our nation’s broken health care system is failing its citizens, doesn’t address the importance of preventative education. 

The film addresses the need for insurance companies to cover more preventative care, but neglects to take into account that through preventative education, the likelihood that there will even be the need for care at all–and the costs associated with it–are lessened.

Which is why the D.C. Women’s Agenda’s recent white paper strongly advocates preventative education as a key strategy for improving the health and well-being of our community–with the potential for great impact particularly among our city’s women and girls.

The top health risks of women in our city, as documented in The Portrait Project, are HIV/AIDS, heart disease, teen pregnancy, obesity and diabetes.

All of which are by and large behavior influenced, and in some cases, completely preventable through behavior change.

Yet, according to the 2006 D.C. Mayor’s Health Care Task Force Report, even though 40 percent of all health outcomes are directly related to behavior, only 2 to 3 percent of our resources are spent influencing behavior through prevention programs.

One case in point is diet.  Many children are not being taught proper eating habits. I commonly see kids walking to school eating a bag of chips at 8:30 in the morning.  As we documented in our white paper, only 42.7 percent of schools require a health education course as part of general curriculum. More alarming still, only 16 percent of D.C. schools offer fresh fruits and/or vegetables for purchase in the school store.

To address this, the D.C. Women’s Agenda has recommended, among other things, to be sure that our city’s girls are educated about how to take care of their bodies. Children need to be taught how to eat right so that they do not have to deal with obesity, diabetes or heart disease later on.

Enabling girls to have education about health will ensure that there are fewer deaths related to avoidable causes, and consequentially, less time and money spent on emergency health care.

Providing girls–and all children–with adequate nutritional information and education will enable them to make good choices about nutrition.  It would mean that many of them will be able to grow up to be healthy adults not worrying about diabetes or heart disease, and able to focus on other things rather than health problems that could have been prevented if they had been taught a little about nutrition at an earlier age.

And healthier children and adults mean a healthier community–as funding, resources and efforts once spent battling preventable illness and disease can be directed to other community needs. 

For previous posts on the white paper, please visit:
DCWA: Calling all city leaders! (Intro post)
DCWA: Economic security is key to the city’s health.
DCWA: Safety for women anything but small talk.
DCWA:  White picket fence eludes many, especially women.
DCWA: Achieving balance difficult if you can’t weigh your options.

Jessica Goshow is DC Employment Justice Center’s (DCEJC) legal and policy associate.  Being that EJC and Wider Opportunities for Women are the co-chairs of the DCWA, she was involved in the coordination, writing, and reviewing of the white paper.

The DC Women’s Agenda, DC Employment Justice Center and Wider Opportunities for Women are all Grantee Partners of The Women’s Foundation.

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.   

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. 

Security officers in the District of Columbia are predominantly African American women.

They are often paid as little as $8 per hour and lack paid sick days and other benefits that so many of us–working in the same buildings they do, under their protection–take for granted.

Recently the officers have formed a union and are preparing for their first chance to bargain for better pay and benefits.

In May, The Women’s Foundation hosted an exciting tenant meeting where two security officers told participants about struggling with lack of benefits, low wages and the instability that plagues their jobs.

These same officers now have the chance to improve working conditions by negotiating their first union contract, and it’s crucial that we support them during these negotiations.

Now is our chance. 

The Building Benefits project, a network of tenants in downtown Washington, D.C. offices who support the low-wage workers in their buildings, is providing an opportunity to show solidarity–or a Sticker Day of Action–with these security officers on Wednesday, July 25.  

Please join The Women’s Foundation, who will continue their support by recruiting tenants at 1411 K. Street to wear stickers that will send the message to the security guards in our buildings, “We support you in your efforts to gain better working conditions!”

The Sticker Day of Action is being coordinated by the Building Benefits network, a project of DC Jobs with Justice, Center for Law and Social Policy and the DC Employment Justice Center, and involves tenants in more than 24 office buildings downtown who have committed to supporting workers in their buildings.

We’d love to add you, and your building, to our growing list of participants in this action network!

DC Jobs with Justice– a local coalition of labor unions, faith communities and community organizations – first began organizing office-building tenants during the summer of 2006 to support efforts by security officers to form a union.

In addition to organizing tenant meetings, the Building Benefits network has also been supporting paid sick and safe days for workers in DC.  This issue profoundly affects the lives of women, since working mothers must take care not only of themselves but of their children as well.  If they cannot take paid sick leave they are often forced to make the impossible choice between taking care of a sick child or losing a day’s pay.

Do you work in an office downtown?  Then get involved!

We would love to help you host a brown bag lunch in your building, where your co-workers and other tenants can learn more about these issues and discuss taking action to support workers in the building.

To learn more, please contact Mackenzie Baris by email or at 202-974-8224.

Sarah David Heydemann is a Solidarity Intern with D.C. Jobs With Justice.

The DC Employment Justice Center is a Grantee Partner of The Women’s Foundation.

The following is the fifth post in a series covering aspects and angles on the DC Women’s Agenda’s recent white paper, Voices and Choices for D.C. Women and Girls: Recommendations for City Leaders 2007.  The DC Women’s Agenda promotes the advancement, equality and well-being of women in D.C. This series of blogs is an extension of a very important proposal of recommendations to city leaders to truly make tangible changes in the Washington metropolitan area.

There has always been a conversation around working mothers and the balance between protecting their career growth and being able to spend time with loved ones.

Most of us would prefer more flexibility at work, so that we could go to every one of our daughter’s ballet recitals or our son’s little league games, or heck, even a PTA meeting every once in while.

But when our hands our tied, putting food on the table and a roof over our heads tends to be a higher priority.

If everyone could have it all, I’m sure they would.  For most though–and particularly for low income families–they can’t.   

It is because of this that the Washington Post article, “Part-Time Looks Fine to Working Mothers: 60% Prefer it to Full Time or No Job” falls short in accounting for the true realities of women–and particularly low-income women–to say the least.

The article reviews a recent study that claims that the proportion of working mothers who prefer to work part-time has jumped by 12 percentage points since 1997.  More importantly, despite the fact that 60 percent of working moms find working part-time as the ideal, only 24 percent of them have part-time hours.

The article attributes the cause for these numbers as being due to a differing value system that Generation X possesses over the Baby Boomers.  As Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute, claims, “We found that the younger people are more family-centric than Boomers are.  Most young people have seen someone lose their job, and they have lived through 9/11. It’s not that they don’t want to work. They just want to work more flexibly.”

But what the article nonchalantly sweeps under the rug is that taking part-time hours “has meant some financial cutbacks and compromises,” which most low-income (or even moderate income) mothers can’t afford. The article explains, “Jackie Wyche, a married mother of four in Stafford who took part in the research, said part-time work is best — even though it is simply not possible in her life. ‘I have to pay the bills,’ she said. She wishes it were different.”

So, let’s make a difference and provide job training to mobilize women so that one day they may have the ability to weigh their options–which many cannot do as they work for low, hourly wages, do not have paid sick or vacation time and often, have little to no health insurance. 

Much of today’s workforce–a large proportion of this working mothers–cannot afford to take a day off work sick, much less cut back to part-time. 

Currently, according to the Washington Area Women’s Foundation’s Portrait Project, 65 percent of women in the D.C. area are employed.  Yet, a third of women-headed families who work (which tends to be the trend of low-income mothers) are impoverished and 11 percent of women in D.C. are unemployed.

Many of these working women have dead end jobs that pay low wages and offer no benefits. 

These women are therefore stuck in a vicious cycle of living paycheck to paycheck.  As the DCWA white paper explains, these jobs “keep working poor persons well below the poverty line and just one small step ahead of homelessness.  In fact, 31.6 percent of homeless DC adult residents are employed.” 

They’re holding on by a thread and we need to do something about it.

Funding for job training, particularly for low-income women, would:

• Provide women, especially mothers, with the skills that they’ll need to advance in a career that provides self-sufficiency and mobility in the company–not just a job;
• Improve literacy and basic education levels;
• Help women overcome barriers to living wage employment, such as child care, mental and physical health problems, a lack of a driver’s license, and housing;
• Assist trainees in developing soft skills such as better communication, team building, self-esteem and better confidence to help them progress and advance in higher paying, more stable careers;
• Provide job development support to ensure that trainees can search for and obtain a position within their chosen career path in the future; and,  
• Create networks to link trainees with jobs in high-demand sectors and which pay at least $11.75 per hour ( D.C.’s new living wage) and offer benefits.

Contact your D.C. councilmember and tell them that we value our families and a healthy work-family balance for all of the working mothers in the District of Columbia.  Tell them that one of the best ways of accomplishing that is through job training to mobilize working mothers so that they can afford to scale their options and remain self-sufficient.

For more information on how job training programs funded with support from The Women’s Foundation are making a difference in the lives of women throughout our community: 
Constructing futures, one woman at a time.
Street Sense vendor finds a stepping stone in Goodwill course.
WAWIT: Welding a new world for women.
Women hammering their way to social change, not just another job.

The DC Women’s Agenda, DC Employment Justice Center and Wider Opportunities for Women are all Grantee Partners of The Women’s Foundation. 

About the blogger:
Natasha Pendleton is a summer intern with Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), a convenor of the DC Women’s Agenda.  She is currently a senior attaining a bachelor of arts degree in sociology with concentrations in law and society and urban and regional planning at Cornell University.  She serves as theatrical director of an anti-oppression theatre troop, which performs for more than 5,000 people nationwide (annually) to promote diversity and racial harmony on college campuses.  A native of Chicago, Natasha was motivated to come to Washington, D.C. this summer to work with WOW by issues of social and economic justice that have pressed upon her heart for some time.  Natasha truly believes that not only is the government accountable, but it is our responsibility to be informed citizens to challenge the state of local policy.  And furthermore, as those informed citizens, it is our responsibility to raise voices and awareness so that all people, especially women and girls, can live in safe, fair, and thriving communities.

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.)

As president of Legal Momentum, the country’s oldest legal advocacy organization for women, I’ve been talking to women around the country about the issues that matter to them.  Hands down, they boil down to four areas: violence, health, work and families. 

What I also hear, again and again, is our pride in all we’ve accomplished – tempered with the knowledge of how far we still have to go.

Legal Momentum’s new book, Women: A Celebration of Strength, vividly captures the sense of history and purpose of the women’s movement from the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848 to the election of the first woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007.

One of the great things about our book is that it makes women’s history literally jump off the page – with three-dimensional, hand-assembled pop-ups and replicas of key historical documents – it’s a fun and informative way to tell our story.  It also has a serious, forward-looking agenda, taking a candid look at the issues that affect women and their families today – and laying the groundwork for a renewed national conversation.

We share Washington Area Women’s Foundation’s commitment to issues of economic security.  Even as we celebrate the women who broke new ground in corporate boardrooms, government halls, sports fields, hospitals and courtrooms, we are keenly aware that millions of American women are struggling to build financial stability for themselves and their families.

That’s why one of Legal Momentum’s top priorities is helping women gain access to fields – such as the skilled trades and firefighting – that offer high wages and good benefits, training and career growth, even for women without a college degree.

Consider, for example, that fewer than three percent of all construction jobs are held by women. Working with all the stakeholders in the sector – government, developers, construction firms, unions, education and training programs and, most importantly, tradeswomen themselves – our Equality Works program – much like the female construction programs The Women’s Foundation supports – is promoting the trades as an attractive career to girls, removing barriers that prevent tradeswomen from finding work and, when necessary, filing lawsuits that challenge discrimination on the job.

During World War II, Rosie the Riveter was the icon used by the federal government to recruit more than two million women into the labor force to work in heavy industry jobs. Women responded to the call and their strength supported our nation’s victory.

Yet today – five decades later – women who want to support their families in similar kinds of work are blatantly being turned away or pushed out.

By showing how far women have come and how far we must still go, Women: A Celebration of Strength, is the perfect way to celebrate our history and agitate for our future.

For more information on this book, which includes essays by bestselling author Anna Quindlen and inspiring Oprah Book Club author Edwidge Danticat, please visit LegalMomentum.org.

The following is the fourth post in a series covering aspects and angles on the DC Women’s Agenda’s recent white paper, Voices and Choices for D.C. Women and Girls: Recommendations for City Leaders 2007.  The DC Women’s Agenda promotes the advancement, equality and well-being of women in D.C. This series of blogs is an extension of a very important proposal of recommendations to city leaders to truly make tangible changes in the D.C. metropolitan area.

One of the main tenants of the American Dream is the little house with the white picket fence.

But the reality is that for most families in the United States, this dream will probably never become reality.  Nationwide, 15.6 million households are paying more than half their incomes for housing. 

This is an astounding number, which hits close to home because of the housing crisis here in D.C., where thousands of people cannot afford the staggering prices of apartments.

Finding quality, affordable housing in D.C. is hard even for those who have good jobs. Finding the same type of housing for someone making minimum wage is virtually impossible.  According to Housing and Urban Development, in fiscal year 2007, a worker earning $7.00 per hour in D.C.  would have to work at least 141 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rate. 

This is outrageous, and a testament to how we desperately need to raise the minimum wage in this country.  (That is another story, however.)

Obviously, there are some people in the district who can afford $1300 for a one bedroom apartment, but many cannot.

Currently, those who need public housing are in an even worse predicament. As the white paper points out, there are more than 52,000 households on the D.C. Housing Authority’s waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers and/or public housing.  Twenty thousand of those have registered with the housing authority that they are homeless and therefore eligible for a Homelessness Preference for the vouchers.

Most of the households in public housing are headed by women.

This is an issue that hits women especially hard.  Many women have the challenge of providing for multiple children and themselves with no help.

How do they do it?

Most often, they hold down two or even three jobs. In addition, most of these jobs do not provide paid sick days or benefits.

The DCWA white paper makes quite a few recommendations, one of which is a request that the city implement an effort to develop a minimum of 19,000 affordable units, and 6,000 new units which are available to people who are at (or below) 30 percent of the area median income.

If the suggestions in the white paper are acted upon, it would mean that a large number of the District’s families, including many women-headed households, would be able to find housing that they can afford.  This would allow them to spend their money in other ways, such as buying healthy food, finding adequate health care and providing their children with necessary school supplies. 

Not to mention the peace of mind of knowing they are not spending half of their income on housing.

All across the city there are new luxury condos popping up where affordable, or reasonably affordable, apartments once stood.  D.C. prides itself on being a very diverse “state;” however, if people continue to be pushed out because rent is so outrageous, there will only be one type of person who will be able to afford to live here.

What do we want our city to portray?  A place that is only open to wealthy people?

Or a place that has culture, diversity, and welcomes all who want to live here.

For previous posts on the white paper, please visit:
DCWA: Calling all city leaders! (Intro post)
DCWA: Economic security is key to the city’s health
DCWA: Safety for women anything but small talk

Jessica Goshow is DC Employment Justice Center’s (DCEJC) legal and policy associate.  Being that EJC and Wider Opportunities for Women are the co-chairs of the DCWA, she was involved in the coordination, writing, and reviewing of the white paper.

The DC Women’s Agenda, DC Employment Justice Center and Wider Opportunities for Women are all Grantee Partners of The Women’s Foundation.