Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Mari forwarded this Slate article by Jonathon Katz because, like most of you, she knows I have an affinity for raising chickens. I liked this line:
" Some things simply can't be accounted for by human perception. Often, the best part of living on a farm is the mystery."
It's akin to local story. Jenny the Donkey. Jenny was chasing off vermin on a farm when she escaped and has been at large for, oh, about 6 weeks now. Jenny's orneriness has been contributed to, well, being a donkey. When the local rags picked up the story it appears the mystery is beyond human perception. Jenny seems to be searching for her mate -- Isabella who is living in New Hampshire.
A lover's reunion is scheduled for the near future.
" Some things simply can't be accounted for by human perception. Often, the best part of living on a farm is the mystery."
It's akin to local story. Jenny the Donkey. Jenny was chasing off vermin on a farm when she escaped and has been at large for, oh, about 6 weeks now. Jenny's orneriness has been contributed to, well, being a donkey. When the local rags picked up the story it appears the mystery is beyond human perception. Jenny seems to be searching for her mate -- Isabella who is living in New Hampshire.
A lover's reunion is scheduled for the near future.
Friday, February 23, 2007
More on Choice and Nature vs. Nurture
The issue of men at MWF is a hot button. Invite men to the board? Invest in men and boys through grantmaking?
I know it is a hot button because most people I meet make sure I know their opinions, which inevitably fall into one of four camps.
1. Give women and girls the opportunity to define their fund "first" before we invite men to contribute. In a combined situation, women will defer to men, losing the empowerment that the institution stands for.
- or -
We need a level playing field first, so invest in women and girls primarily.
2. Live the equality and diverity value that we preach.
- or -
Let us not create a false environment where women and girls succeed on thier own; then expect them to succeed in a environment that they have no experience negotiating.
My personal opinion (and though being the ED, my personal opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the organization) is the latter. If we believe in feminism, we must believe that women have the natural ability to compete in an environment with men and that we must give them the ability to choose whether or not to do that. We can not make that decision for them.
That is not to say that we're not battling societal norms and cultural baggage along the way and that some nurturing is required.
The issue of men at MWF is a hot button. Invite men to the board? Invest in men and boys through grantmaking?
I know it is a hot button because most people I meet make sure I know their opinions, which inevitably fall into one of four camps.
1. Give women and girls the opportunity to define their fund "first" before we invite men to contribute. In a combined situation, women will defer to men, losing the empowerment that the institution stands for.
- or -
We need a level playing field first, so invest in women and girls primarily.
2. Live the equality and diverity value that we preach.
- or -
Let us not create a false environment where women and girls succeed on thier own; then expect them to succeed in a environment that they have no experience negotiating.
My personal opinion (and though being the ED, my personal opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the organization) is the latter. If we believe in feminism, we must believe that women have the natural ability to compete in an environment with men and that we must give them the ability to choose whether or not to do that. We can not make that decision for them.
That is not to say that we're not battling societal norms and cultural baggage along the way and that some nurturing is required.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Interesting piece by Slate about transparency in the philanthropic world.
Transparency and accountability are a big deal in the philanthropic/nonprofit world of late. Which drives me nuts because its just another buzz word for folks initiated by Sarbanes/Oxley. I love it when foundations and nonprofits figure out what it is they want to hold themselves accountable for and deliver on that promise... rather than talking about 'accountability' and 'transparency' in a vaccuum. So articles like these make me happy.
Transparency and accountability are a big deal in the philanthropic/nonprofit world of late. Which drives me nuts because its just another buzz word for folks initiated by Sarbanes/Oxley. I love it when foundations and nonprofits figure out what it is they want to hold themselves accountable for and deliver on that promise... rather than talking about 'accountability' and 'transparency' in a vaccuum. So articles like these make me happy.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Choice
This is a bit embarassing to admit for the Executive Director of a women's fund -- but lately, I've been having some revelations about what it means to be 'pro-choice' and realize that my definition has always been severely limited. I assumed that the term referred only to reproductive health -- and to that end, I always felt that the pro-choicers got the short end of the stick when it came to categorization. Pro-choicers are obviously in favor of life and believe that the ability to choose is part of a self-determined life. And I do believe that name positioning is important -- there is a huge difference between 'global warming' and 'climate change' -- the latter not paralyzing people in fear...
But choice goes far beyond reproductive health. Choice is about not making a women's decision for her and proactively giving her the opportunity to be self-determined, believing that when a woman makes decisions in her own self-interest, her community and family will be better off. And there are many applications of this. Most recently this came to light in the fundraising world -- when a board member and I were trying to decide how much to ask (financially) of a potential donor. She was more inclined to ask for a lower amount given that the donor gives so much to the movement in addition to financial dollars. I was more inclined to ask for more becauseI I believe that the if she can't give at that level, she'll tell me so and give me what she can. The concepts of choice offered a third rationale -- its not our job to predefine a giving bracket for her -- in doing so, we never give her the choice to be a major donor. We are telling her its 'out of grasp.'
The same could be applied to many areas -- the level of transparency we use with employees when talking about staff development, providing clear and understandable health information to let parents choose whether or not vaccine are right for their children, etc. etc.
This is a bit embarassing to admit for the Executive Director of a women's fund -- but lately, I've been having some revelations about what it means to be 'pro-choice' and realize that my definition has always been severely limited. I assumed that the term referred only to reproductive health -- and to that end, I always felt that the pro-choicers got the short end of the stick when it came to categorization. Pro-choicers are obviously in favor of life and believe that the ability to choose is part of a self-determined life. And I do believe that name positioning is important -- there is a huge difference between 'global warming' and 'climate change' -- the latter not paralyzing people in fear...
But choice goes far beyond reproductive health. Choice is about not making a women's decision for her and proactively giving her the opportunity to be self-determined, believing that when a woman makes decisions in her own self-interest, her community and family will be better off. And there are many applications of this. Most recently this came to light in the fundraising world -- when a board member and I were trying to decide how much to ask (financially) of a potential donor. She was more inclined to ask for a lower amount given that the donor gives so much to the movement in addition to financial dollars. I was more inclined to ask for more becauseI I believe that the if she can't give at that level, she'll tell me so and give me what she can. The concepts of choice offered a third rationale -- its not our job to predefine a giving bracket for her -- in doing so, we never give her the choice to be a major donor. We are telling her its 'out of grasp.'
The same could be applied to many areas -- the level of transparency we use with employees when talking about staff development, providing clear and understandable health information to let parents choose whether or not vaccine are right for their children, etc. etc.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Superman was Superman first. He had to be Clark Kent to pay the bills. Not vice versa.
Why then do we think of our secret identities as our alter egos rather than owning our secret identities as our core identity?
Having an alter ego is about owning a secret passion -- a passion so deep that we long for its actualization in our daily lives. My alter ego is Eli The Chef. In a more perfect world, I would have invested my creativity in a culinary institute. But we don't live in a more perfect world and so I came online as EliTheChef about the same time Mari and I started having deep debates about identity and I started struggling for a sense of place.
Seven months later, I no longer feel that EliTheChef is an alter ego. I'm living the dichotomy in my virtual world. Mari's right. In a virtual world, I can be Elithechef, Eli the Global Foodie, and Eli the Executive Director of the Maine Women's Fund. Not one is more core than the other.
Any one else going the route of virtual schitzophrenia?
Why then do we think of our secret identities as our alter egos rather than owning our secret identities as our core identity?
Having an alter ego is about owning a secret passion -- a passion so deep that we long for its actualization in our daily lives. My alter ego is Eli The Chef. In a more perfect world, I would have invested my creativity in a culinary institute. But we don't live in a more perfect world and so I came online as EliTheChef about the same time Mari and I started having deep debates about identity and I started struggling for a sense of place.
Seven months later, I no longer feel that EliTheChef is an alter ego. I'm living the dichotomy in my virtual world. Mari's right. In a virtual world, I can be Elithechef, Eli the Global Foodie, and Eli the Executive Director of the Maine Women's Fund. Not one is more core than the other.
Any one else going the route of virtual schitzophrenia?
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
I'm officially a tri-blogger. It's funny how quickly it happened. I had agreed with Mari that managing multiple blogs was a scary/time consuming prospect and hadn't intended to be working on 3 blogs at once (as well as religiously following a host of others). But today the Maine Women's Fund launched E-quality Matters to bring our offline conversations about the future of the fund online. I've said it before and I will say it again. Maine is a big state. My hope is that a blog can help bring ideas, challenges, persepctives, and beliefs together in one place. This would be a huge coup for Fund that is hoping to become a 'statewide' fund.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Whose job is it anyway?
I've been participating in a conversation at SSIR that begs the question -- who's responsibility is it to pay for social services? I've been dancing around this question for the last few years from my professional life to online conversations.
Last week I met with a leader in the homeless community -- who is dealing with the issue of homeless in Maine through the housing first model. This model was introduced to pop culture by Malcolm Gladwell, in his New Yorker article Million Dollar Murray. Interestingly enough the vast majority of people at a homeless shelter on a given night will only spend that one night at a shelter -- despite the fact that there are so many of them, they are not a costly group to serve. The major costs of homelessness are borne by 10% of the homeless population that are 'chronically homeless' -- they suffer from mental diseases, substance abuse, and a host of other health issues. They are expensive to treat because once a month they will end up in emergency care for hypothermia, cirrhosis, broken bones, etc. Emergency care is a very expensive way to care for these folks. Malcolm's Million Dollar Murray is one man who cost the city of Las Vegas over $1 million because of this care.
The Homeless first model prescribes dealing with these people on the front end to reduce the high end cost of dealing with them on the back end. A model has been established in Portland and seems to be working fairly well (an economic analysis is underway to determine if any efficiencies were really gained). A new model home is being developed to support the chronically female homeless who in addition to all the other problems are more vulnerable to violence and sexual assault.
Once this home is set up, it will take a $1 million/year to service the home. This is an economic burden for a nonprofit. Should the government pay the cost because the government would have paid the more expensive costs on the back end?
I've been participating in a conversation at SSIR that begs the question -- who's responsibility is it to pay for social services? I've been dancing around this question for the last few years from my professional life to online conversations.
Last week I met with a leader in the homeless community -- who is dealing with the issue of homeless in Maine through the housing first model. This model was introduced to pop culture by Malcolm Gladwell, in his New Yorker article Million Dollar Murray. Interestingly enough the vast majority of people at a homeless shelter on a given night will only spend that one night at a shelter -- despite the fact that there are so many of them, they are not a costly group to serve. The major costs of homelessness are borne by 10% of the homeless population that are 'chronically homeless' -- they suffer from mental diseases, substance abuse, and a host of other health issues. They are expensive to treat because once a month they will end up in emergency care for hypothermia, cirrhosis, broken bones, etc. Emergency care is a very expensive way to care for these folks. Malcolm's Million Dollar Murray is one man who cost the city of Las Vegas over $1 million because of this care.
The Homeless first model prescribes dealing with these people on the front end to reduce the high end cost of dealing with them on the back end. A model has been established in Portland and seems to be working fairly well (an economic analysis is underway to determine if any efficiencies were really gained). A new model home is being developed to support the chronically female homeless who in addition to all the other problems are more vulnerable to violence and sexual assault.
Once this home is set up, it will take a $1 million/year to service the home. This is an economic burden for a nonprofit. Should the government pay the cost because the government would have paid the more expensive costs on the back end?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Today launches birthday week for ElitheChef. My funny fabulous friends here at the Maine Women's Fund were quick to catch on (to my not so subtle hints that I love to celebrate January 28th), and put together my birthday montage. Check it out, they have a sense of humor and know how to use it.
Happy Birthday Eli
PS -- The weather forecast called for sunshine today and, go figure, its been snowing since noon!
Happy Birthday Eli
PS -- The weather forecast called for sunshine today and, go figure, its been snowing since noon!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Only in Maine... I feel bad for the guy -- but the headline sparked a case of the giggles anyway. One other landmark transition event -- the temperature this morning was a high of 7 degrees, and with complete disregard for my DC clothes attitude of dress to impress, I layered on the long underwear beneath cold weather gear :)
Worm digger rescued after foot freezes in muck
3:41 PMWESTPORT ISLAND - Rescue crews had to battle the cold on Wednesday to save a man along the banks of Westport Island.
They said the man, a worm digger, became stuck when his boot filled with water then froze.
The man's co-workers called for help, and Westport volunteer firefighters responded. They said that when they arrived, the unidentified man was showing signs of hypothermia.
Volunteer firefighter Rusty Robertson said, "He was shivering uncontrollably, but he was answering questions appropriately. So he had his faculties, but he was definitely showing signs of being out in the weather."
The man was taken to Maine Medical Center in Portland. There is no word on his condition, but firefighters said they didn't believe he will lose his foot.
Reader comments
Josh of Carrabassett Valley, ME
Jan 18, 2007 3:14 PM
Nice Headline...
Worm digger rescued after foot freezes in muck
3:41 PMWESTPORT ISLAND - Rescue crews had to battle the cold on Wednesday to save a man along the banks of Westport Island.
They said the man, a worm digger, became stuck when his boot filled with water then froze.
The man's co-workers called for help, and Westport volunteer firefighters responded. They said that when they arrived, the unidentified man was showing signs of hypothermia.
Volunteer firefighter Rusty Robertson said, "He was shivering uncontrollably, but he was answering questions appropriately. So he had his faculties, but he was definitely showing signs of being out in the weather."
The man was taken to Maine Medical Center in Portland. There is no word on his condition, but firefighters said they didn't believe he will lose his foot.
Reader comments
Josh of Carrabassett Valley, ME
Jan 18, 2007 3:14 PM
Nice Headline...
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Today, I attended a panel discussion, at which the five largest foundations in Maine discussed growing philanthropic trends. I expected the conversation to focus on new philanthropic tools and mechanisms, growth rates, geographic representation, etc. Instead, the conversation was targeted at the recipients of philanthropic funds and ultimately their disfunction:
- There are too many nonprofits.
- They do not collaborate enough.
- They reinvent the wheel.
- The need to improve accountabiity and transparency.
- They need to stop head counting and start measuring actual change.
These are not unfamiliar points. I recognize them, and I even own having contributed to this conversation at some point in my life. But as I listened to the conversation, I felt uncomfortable with the tone -- nonprofits are the source of the innovation that we invest in. It is their passion and drive that constantly mend the tears of our social fabric. Yes, their proposals are the stuff of our files and email jams, but they are not the source of our problems.
As to there being too many of them. It does make life complicated for the consumer, i.e. the donor who sorts through message after message to find the one or two worthy of a donation. But in the end, isn't this quantity good for innovation, competition, volunteerism, and all the other stuff that social capital is made of?
- There are too many nonprofits.
- They do not collaborate enough.
- They reinvent the wheel.
- The need to improve accountabiity and transparency.
- They need to stop head counting and start measuring actual change.
These are not unfamiliar points. I recognize them, and I even own having contributed to this conversation at some point in my life. But as I listened to the conversation, I felt uncomfortable with the tone -- nonprofits are the source of the innovation that we invest in. It is their passion and drive that constantly mend the tears of our social fabric. Yes, their proposals are the stuff of our files and email jams, but they are not the source of our problems.
As to there being too many of them. It does make life complicated for the consumer, i.e. the donor who sorts through message after message to find the one or two worthy of a donation. But in the end, isn't this quantity good for innovation, competition, volunteerism, and all the other stuff that social capital is made of?
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Super Dog, alias George, is settling in just fine to her new digs. Perhaps in part to beginning to dress like a Mainer. George's new attire includes:
Wonder Boots. Obviously a wardrobe essential for any web footed female. The ice and snow builds up quickly, making my partner a snoe shoeing obstacle as she stops mid-trail to knaw out the painful crustations.
Blaze Orange Reflective Super Cape. Capable of warding off hunters and speeding cars alike.
Side kick. Bullwinkle the Moose, courtesty of DCisME, stands watch as Super Dog naps. and naps. and naps some more.
John Updike wrote that "people who live in Maine need things like Pasta Makers." The quote went through my mind when I bought the wonder boots and the cape. Perhaps he was making light of the banality of yuppie life (which most Mainer's don't live). I don't think people in Maine desire or need things like pasta makers the way they desire or need things like long underwear. A good hat. Gortex boots. And the same goes for my dog.
Wonder Boots. Obviously a wardrobe essential for any web footed female. The ice and snow builds up quickly, making my partner a snoe shoeing obstacle as she stops mid-trail to knaw out the painful crustations.
Blaze Orange Reflective Super Cape. Capable of warding off hunters and speeding cars alike.
Side kick. Bullwinkle the Moose, courtesty of DCisME, stands watch as Super Dog naps. and naps. and naps some more.
John Updike wrote that "people who live in Maine need things like Pasta Makers." The quote went through my mind when I bought the wonder boots and the cape. Perhaps he was making light of the banality of yuppie life (which most Mainer's don't live). I don't think people in Maine desire or need things like pasta makers the way they desire or need things like long underwear. A good hat. Gortex boots. And the same goes for my dog.
a foodie's hell
I did indeed return to Natasha's for lunch the following day. Had a great half sandwich/soup bowl. Returned home and finished up some deli salads and the Caribbean soup.
Then died.
6 hours in food poisening hell. And too all those who know me, I will admit that perhaps my immune system is a bit weakened by the ladened stress lately. However, it was food poisening indeed.
4 days later and I can sip gingerale and nibble on crackers.
A foodie's hell is not bad restaurants, it is having no interest in food at all.
I did indeed return to Natasha's for lunch the following day. Had a great half sandwich/soup bowl. Returned home and finished up some deli salads and the Caribbean soup.
Then died.
6 hours in food poisening hell. And too all those who know me, I will admit that perhaps my immune system is a bit weakened by the ladened stress lately. However, it was food poisening indeed.
4 days later and I can sip gingerale and nibble on crackers.
A foodie's hell is not bad restaurants, it is having no interest in food at all.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
a foodie's paradise
A moment now, to put all this world changing stuff aside, and focus on another true delight of Maine: The Food.
This morning I finished off the blueberry buckwheat pancakes that Scott and I had gorged on all weekend. At the health food store (no, not Whole Food, my friends, this former addict hasn’t stepped foot in a Whole Foods since leaving the District… the run of the mill Hannafords and Royal River Health Food is serving me just fine), I was amazed to find straight from the patch frozen blueberries that, despite any formal packaging, I bought and tested anyway. Um umm good. I still can’t believe that I had never really liked blueberries until I tasted Megan’s Mom’s Maine blueberry pie… blueberries don’t get better than those from Maine as I’m beginning to realize that the ½ inch diameter blueberries from Whole Foods are nuclear-waste scary, not intriguing.
This afternoon I lunched at Natasha’s –
And last but not least my random fine this evening. Days start early in Maine (to the extent that I’ve had a lunch meeting start as early as 11:45… back in the District, Dana would still be on her second breakfast at that time). Usually they end earlier too and I head home to Super Dog. Only this evening, a meeting ran late and I was hustling to get out of the office at 6:30 to make it home. With no food in the house, I swung by a take out place on my way home and found the crème de la crème of soups.
Finding something this good random locations is what defines a foodie’s paradise.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Oh Dear God, sometimes Blogger is the most irritating tool!
But enough about blogger... onto KMart's pro-violence against women t-shirts.
A few good places to read about it...
K Stands for Kreepy at Walley Whateley's blog...
And a best yet --
Hardy Girls, who has joined forced with Boys to Men, is asking KMart to take responsibility and pull the t-shirts from the shelves. Visit their web site and learn how you can help.
A few folks out there think that the brood of women who are pissed about the shirts should get a sense of humor. And then there are those of who have to deal with 50% of homocide cases being victims of domestic violence and don't think we need to chuckle.
Get involved at Hardy Girls. This isn't just a Maine issue.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Okay, okay, I wax my eyebrows...
Because otherwise, they would take over my face -- and I'll be honest with you, when they are neat and trimmed I do feel more confident. I have to get them waxed every 3-4 weeks, and I pluck incessantly in between to keep that look.
Why do I think you care?
Because I think its part of the conversation about what it means to be a feminist.
I've long thought that it was my father who was the ultimate feminist in the family. This might be shocking, given it was my mother who took me to my first pro-choice rally when I was 9 (and to her credit, she did a brilliant job explaining the posters depicting clothing hangers).
But in addition to being a feminist, my father is also a naturalist -- the thicker the leg hair the better -- and I think I've long thought the two concepts synonymous.
I also believe that I'm not alone in that thinking. A feminist would be comfortable in her own skin. A feminist would never pluck. A feminist would never shave. A feminist would be comfortable with her grays. I never really thought there was more to the definition, and it never occurred to me to even attempt to tease more out of the conversation.
But that is exactly where I find myself today. Last week, I moved to Maine to join the Maine Women's Fund as its new Executive Director. I've long admired and funded the broader women's' funding movement -- as it fits with my own theory of change -- that individuals need to take responsibility for themselves and their communities thoughtfully and strategically. Women bring their own unique perspective, decision making process, and priorities to social change; and they are known for investing in themselves, their families, their communities, and their businesses when given the resources to do so. Supporters of the women's funding movement believe that investing in women's fund provide the widest possible leverage, or ripple effect, per dollar.
To provide strategic thinking, perspective, and leadership to this movement, and to do so in Maine, proved to be an unparalleled opportunity. I've also joined the Fund at an opportune time. We've got a sound track record behind us -- $1.4 million invested in over 250 grassroots organizations across Maine. We've got a broad base of citizen, corporate, and partner support helping us change the behaviors and policies that affect women and girls. Most excitingly, the projects we've supported have been designed by the women and girls themselves.
That is not say that we still don't have major challenges ahead of us:
Women in Maine are far from financially secure. The work place is increasingly unable to cover a share of the increasing costs of health care, leaving women increasingly vulnerable. Women still earn $.73 for each dollar earned by men. Over 70% of families living below the poverty line in Maine are headed by women. 50% of homicides in Maine are cases of domestic violence. Girls are trapped realizing the limitations of poverty rather than empowered to envision the impossible -- college, professional training, and beyond.
With these barriers surrounding the women and girls of Maine, they can not be active participants in the development of their communities, and that ripple effect of social change is never even activated.
So here I am -- excited and ready to start that activation. And I think that happens by realizing the feminist within to broaden the base of support required to change behaviors, and transmit the change we want to see and the nurture. But we can't do that if most people feel excluded by 'feminism' (which btw, i've often heard referred to as the 'f-word.')
So my dear community, help me in this process. Tell me what feminism means to you and whether or not you feel part of this tribe.
Because otherwise, they would take over my face -- and I'll be honest with you, when they are neat and trimmed I do feel more confident. I have to get them waxed every 3-4 weeks, and I pluck incessantly in between to keep that look.
Why do I think you care?
Because I think its part of the conversation about what it means to be a feminist.
I've long thought that it was my father who was the ultimate feminist in the family. This might be shocking, given it was my mother who took me to my first pro-choice rally when I was 9 (and to her credit, she did a brilliant job explaining the posters depicting clothing hangers).
But in addition to being a feminist, my father is also a naturalist -- the thicker the leg hair the better -- and I think I've long thought the two concepts synonymous.
I also believe that I'm not alone in that thinking. A feminist would be comfortable in her own skin. A feminist would never pluck. A feminist would never shave. A feminist would be comfortable with her grays. I never really thought there was more to the definition, and it never occurred to me to even attempt to tease more out of the conversation.
But that is exactly where I find myself today. Last week, I moved to Maine to join the Maine Women's Fund as its new Executive Director. I've long admired and funded the broader women's' funding movement -- as it fits with my own theory of change -- that individuals need to take responsibility for themselves and their communities thoughtfully and strategically. Women bring their own unique perspective, decision making process, and priorities to social change; and they are known for investing in themselves, their families, their communities, and their businesses when given the resources to do so. Supporters of the women's funding movement believe that investing in women's fund provide the widest possible leverage, or ripple effect, per dollar.
To provide strategic thinking, perspective, and leadership to this movement, and to do so in Maine, proved to be an unparalleled opportunity. I've also joined the Fund at an opportune time. We've got a sound track record behind us -- $1.4 million invested in over 250 grassroots organizations across Maine. We've got a broad base of citizen, corporate, and partner support helping us change the behaviors and policies that affect women and girls. Most excitingly, the projects we've supported have been designed by the women and girls themselves.
That is not say that we still don't have major challenges ahead of us:
Women in Maine are far from financially secure. The work place is increasingly unable to cover a share of the increasing costs of health care, leaving women increasingly vulnerable. Women still earn $.73 for each dollar earned by men. Over 70% of families living below the poverty line in Maine are headed by women. 50% of homicides in Maine are cases of domestic violence. Girls are trapped realizing the limitations of poverty rather than empowered to envision the impossible -- college, professional training, and beyond.
With these barriers surrounding the women and girls of Maine, they can not be active participants in the development of their communities, and that ripple effect of social change is never even activated.
So here I am -- excited and ready to start that activation. And I think that happens by realizing the feminist within to broaden the base of support required to change behaviors, and transmit the change we want to see and the nurture. But we can't do that if most people feel excluded by 'feminism' (which btw, i've often heard referred to as the 'f-word.')
So my dear community, help me in this process. Tell me what feminism means to you and whether or not you feel part of this tribe.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Help! I'm Locked out of Lux 1500!
For control-focused individuals (freaks is such a nasty word) change can indeed be traumatic. Especially a change as drastic as a new home, new job, and new state in 3 days. There are new patterns to set; new routines to formulate. When it is all new, everything takes more time. And when it doesn’t come easily… well, one can feel like a bit of a dolt.
Take for instance my lighting problem. Scott, George, and I managed to find and rent a house on Saturday -- a cozy little place in Yarmouth with a working fireplace and enough space to handle our many boxes of books. We moved in Sunday afternoon and managed to get to the grocery store before it got dark (which happens early up north). About that time, we realized (a) there is no overhead lightening in the house, and (b) we didn’t pack any lamps. We lighted up the fireplace and lit the many candles and settled in for a romantic evening. It wasn’t so romantic, come Monday, with just George and I. Yet, with new responsibilities and a new town, I’ve yet to find time to go buy lamps (or a shower curtain for that matter). However, I did manage to find some AA batteries and pull my headlamp out of my camping gear – enough light to suit me just fine until the weekend.
My story about the Lux 1500 started out about the same way. The Lux 1500 is one of these fancy dancy thermostat regulators that will automatically turn the heat up at 6 am when you’re waking up, turn it down around 8 am when you leave the house, turn it back up around 7 pm when you get back, so on and so forth. Very eco-friendly. Love it.
Only, on Monday night I managed to “lock” the Lux 1500; the result was that I was unable to increase/decrease the temperature in the house. Lucky for me, it was stuck at 50 degrees, rather than 30 or a 100. However, when it’s down in the single digits here in Maine, 50 degrees still stinks. I spent much of Tuesday emailing back and forth with my landlord – trying to determine what I had done, whether or not it was actually broken, and how to fix it. By that evening, I didn’t have a solution. George was bit pissy as time went by and the house didn’t heat up, nipping at me as if to say: “I bet there is heat in DC” and “what have you done to us!” Megan brought dinner over the house and we realized things were getting bad when we could see our breath as we huddled over our pasta.
When Scott called later that night, he had the good sense to know that if he told me stand in front of the thermostat and do what I had already done, I might scream. However, he did offer to google the thermostat name and brand – which is how we discovered that enough people had locked themselves out of their Lux 1500 that “Help! I'm locked out of Lux 1500!” actually registers as the 2nd most relevant topic under the brand.
God bless Google.
So, while I’m making my way in this strange land, it is nice to know that my ineptitude isn’t always ineptitude. Sometimes only google can save you.
For control-focused individuals (freaks is such a nasty word) change can indeed be traumatic. Especially a change as drastic as a new home, new job, and new state in 3 days. There are new patterns to set; new routines to formulate. When it is all new, everything takes more time. And when it doesn’t come easily… well, one can feel like a bit of a dolt.
Take for instance my lighting problem. Scott, George, and I managed to find and rent a house on Saturday -- a cozy little place in Yarmouth with a working fireplace and enough space to handle our many boxes of books. We moved in Sunday afternoon and managed to get to the grocery store before it got dark (which happens early up north). About that time, we realized (a) there is no overhead lightening in the house, and (b) we didn’t pack any lamps. We lighted up the fireplace and lit the many candles and settled in for a romantic evening. It wasn’t so romantic, come Monday, with just George and I. Yet, with new responsibilities and a new town, I’ve yet to find time to go buy lamps (or a shower curtain for that matter). However, I did manage to find some AA batteries and pull my headlamp out of my camping gear – enough light to suit me just fine until the weekend.
My story about the Lux 1500 started out about the same way. The Lux 1500 is one of these fancy dancy thermostat regulators that will automatically turn the heat up at 6 am when you’re waking up, turn it down around 8 am when you leave the house, turn it back up around 7 pm when you get back, so on and so forth. Very eco-friendly. Love it.
Only, on Monday night I managed to “lock” the Lux 1500; the result was that I was unable to increase/decrease the temperature in the house. Lucky for me, it was stuck at 50 degrees, rather than 30 or a 100. However, when it’s down in the single digits here in Maine, 50 degrees still stinks. I spent much of Tuesday emailing back and forth with my landlord – trying to determine what I had done, whether or not it was actually broken, and how to fix it. By that evening, I didn’t have a solution. George was bit pissy as time went by and the house didn’t heat up, nipping at me as if to say: “I bet there is heat in DC” and “what have you done to us!” Megan brought dinner over the house and we realized things were getting bad when we could see our breath as we huddled over our pasta.
When Scott called later that night, he had the good sense to know that if he told me stand in front of the thermostat and do what I had already done, I might scream. However, he did offer to google the thermostat name and brand – which is how we discovered that enough people had locked themselves out of their Lux 1500 that “Help! I'm locked out of Lux 1500!” actually registers as the 2nd most relevant topic under the brand.
God bless Google.
So, while I’m making my way in this strange land, it is nice to know that my ineptitude isn’t always ineptitude. Sometimes only google can save you.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
The Things I Carry
A neighboring highschool had this tradition -- departing seniors wrote essays, describing the things they carry with them as they leave school; the things gleaned from that phase in their lives that shape them as human beings. Its an allusion to the great book/essay from Tim O'Brien. I was thinking about that today. I have less than a few hours left in my official capacity at GlobalGiving. What do I carry?
A neighboring highschool had this tradition -- departing seniors wrote essays, describing the things they carry with them as they leave school; the things gleaned from that phase in their lives that shape them as human beings. Its an allusion to the great book/essay from Tim O'Brien. I was thinking about that today. I have less than a few hours left in my official capacity at GlobalGiving. What do I carry?
Love and admiration for the most amazing brilliant crazy stimulating fun people anyone can be blessed to call friends and colleagues.
Confidence in world-changing product that I and those amazing colleauges of mine have been building. There is still much to do, but we should take stock of what has already been done and the social change we have enabled.
A taste of what it means to unleash people's potential to maximize innovation and deliver results.
It sounds so mundane, but GlobalGiving and its people are very very special.
My wish to all of you is that you continue to be so.
I look forward to my new role in the GlobalGiving Community, that of a project leader.
So no goodbye quite yet. Just a ciao, for now.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Ears of empathy?
A few weeks back, I went on a serious rant about abusing public resources in the name of learning. The sting still burns, and I've been trying to put my finger on why. A few things are coming together together:
Social change is truly inefficient if each participant in the process must "live" the experience before they "get it." That is to say, we are lost if we can not be empathetic enough to participate in the change process until we've experienced the worst of the human condition individually. It is hard for me to believe that in today's global society, burgeoning with digital media tools, that a direct experience is the only way to establish empathy. I realize that the following are not mainstream -- but, if we're truly listening -- shouldn't they do the trick?
Global Voices -- bringing voices the south into mainstream journalism
KarmaTube -- Inspiring the world one video at a time (in beta)
Rhythmic Uprising -- using podcasts to report on social change in Brazil
These are just a few that move me.
I guess these only work if we are listening, so I question if we are. I have often been at mutli-cultural events, where the diversity of the room is heralded, but the dialogue remains polite and restrained. I wonder if the diversity sentiment itself lacks integrity, e.g. we get excited about diversity, but never really open ourselves up to listen to the diverse perspectives that would lend itself to empathy. Helen LaKelley Hunt writes:
"What is it like to be a welfare mom? A lesbian wanting to raise a child? An incarcerated mother? A woman of wealth struggling with guilt? A man doing the best he can to keep his family together, who is accused of being domineering? In our efforts to prescribe solutions for world problems, do we take the time to ask questions like these and then to quietly listen to the answers?"
Yasmina questioned whether I would be equally mifffed if Keely had been an investigative journalist. Had she been EXPOSING a problem, I would certainly be in a different position. However, the problems with the welfare system have been exposed -- google "problems with welfare" and you'll get the immensity of this exposure. Keely had the opportunity to discuss life with a few welfare recipients. Did she not believe their stories? Or was she not listening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
