The following organizations are working to help women in these regions in a variety of ways; and there are ways for you to get involved also!  I encourage you to make a simple donation to the organization of your choice.  Or, if you want to play a more active role, there are opportunities for that as well.

Women for Women International is an organization that provides opportunities for charitable sponsorship of women in a variety of war torn nations including The Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Sponsorship, which entails a monthly donation amount, provides one woman with job training and human rights education, which allows her to educate other women in her community.  This education gives women the tools to stand up and fight for their rights in nations where those rights have been eroded.  One time donations are also accepted.

Also, if you live in Washington D.C., the organization has volunteer opportunities in their offices.  They also offer a host of internship opportunities.

Run for Congo Women has raised over $700,000 since 2005 for the Women for Women International sponsorship program.  Visit the website to learn how to build a racing team and raise funds in conjunction with an upcoming 5K or 10K race in your city.

The International Rescue Committee is committed to ensuring that women and girls who have been victims of the sexual assault epidemic in The Congo have access to critical care.  Donations help provide support in the form of health care, clean water, education and other aid for survivors of sexual violence.

Oxfam International, an organization based in Great Britain, works in Eastern Congo with communities that are hosting tens of thousands of displaced people.  They focus on providing clean water and sanitation facilities that help prevent the spread of diseases.  They accept donations and offer a plethora of more active volunteer opportunities to those of you located in Great Britain.

The Slate article, 51 Ways to Be a Woman gives a few examples of how some of today’s high-profile female candidates are creating their images with this fine line in mind.  Usually, the result is some matching of traditional femininity, such as family pictures taken in the kitchen, with the use of tough language, think Christine O’Donnell telling Mike Castle to “get his man pants on,” and with accomplishments that prove big boy equality, such as the former CEO status of  Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman.  The goal is to design a female image that out-toughs the guys but still knows how to bake cookies too.

While I could care less about baking cookies, stories where women co-opt male language and subversively undermine male power often pleased me when I was younger.  But now, I wonder how much such stories are only examples of power performed rather than power actually gained.  As such, I feel deeply conflicted by what seem to be the image requirements for women who are running for office today.

I worry that perpetual focus on keeping up with and undermining the boys’ power dilutes the real strengths that women bring as leaders – strengths that would lead to a real and not just an apparent increase in influence.  Telling guys to “man up” only reinforces the idea that strong ideas and strong leadership come from men and women acting like men.  This idea, not the relative masculinity of a male opponent, is what needs to be undermined.

Furthermore, I bristle at the connection between “breaking through the glass ceiling” and a preparation for political office.  It suggests that only women who have managed to compete within the constructs of a male constructed economy are prepared to be successful political leaders; as such it further connects successful leadership with masculine qualities and an ability to achieve male-defined power.  Certainly, the skills demonstrated in a business career that capstones with CEO status are potential assets in political leadership.  But “breaking through the glass ceiling” as a highlighted qualification subversively equates the potential success of women with overcoming disadvantages of womanhood.  As such it reinforces a basic assumed inequality when it comes to leadership.

Now, I recognize the universal requirement that all involved in modern politics think tactically in order to forward agendas, some of which I vigorously support.  Furthermore, I understand that creating an image that appeals to voters who hold a certain set of biases is necessary.  Still, ideally, I wish that female accomplishments weren’t always discussed against a backdrop of overcoming an assumed misfortune of being born female; and I wish that female competence was not always tied to a demonstrated ability to outpace the boys.  Good ideas and the leadership qualities necessary for political effectiveness are not solely male; and until female candidates refuse to reinforce the idea that they are, women will continue to struggle in the quest for real political influence.

In short, there is an outcry from classic liberal-minded feminists, such as Rebecca Traister, who believe that people like Palin are fundamentally anti-feminist and anti-woman because they support policies that do not help women gain power.  Emily Yoffe acknowledges the difficulty with Palin because her life, as a working-mother who has attained a high level of political influence, is a “feminist’s dream.”  Christine Rosen supports Palin’s right to the term, citing first wave feminist matriarchs like Francis Willard, who “often appealed to hearth, home, and children as the basis for their right to be heard in the public sphere.”  Furthermore, some see feminism as a necessarily mixed bag that must become comfortable with varied opinions in order to regain legitimacy.  Feminists must be allowed to disagree about tough issues such as abortion, without being attacked as self-hating and anti-woman and without losing the right to call themselves feminists.

While my personal life reflects that of a classic feminist, I’ve always shied away from embracing the label.  Calling oneself “feminist” has historically required commitment to a platform of viewpoints that, when held together, dims the importance of the individual issues that make up the platform.  By standing separate of the feminist tag I have felt less marginalized when expressing my opinion, which is free of dogmatic loyalty, and more empowered as an individual.

To be sure, I don’t agree with Palin’s politics, but I see her appropriation of “feminism” as a good thing.  Her utter opposition to all things thought to be feminist should expand ideas about what the term means.  The conservative community, where all of Palin’s power is housed, and which has long ignored feminist thought, might suddenly be open to the thoughts of feminists.  In short, she might create a window of opportunity to make feminism relevant again as long as we utilize the opportunity to talk about actual issues without attacking her for appropriating the term “feminist.”

It’s also possible that the end result is a further deflation of the power of feminists.  If so, that should be taken as strong evidence that a different approach to the issues that affect women is needed – perhaps one that addresses issues specifically and not as part of a polarizing, strictly liberal, platform.

If you’re in LA, you should absolutely make a point to go to this show!  It’s super funny.  For more information and to get tix go here!

I did not attend but based on web reports, topics of discussion included the standard feminist sexuality fair…slut-shaming, virginity as it relates to commodification of women and girls, defining virginity when the penis isn’t involved, and lastly aligning abstinence with sex positive language.

Because I collect the women’s stories of virginity loss, I should care about all of this and I’m wondering why I’m not that interested.  It’s not that I don’t care at all, I’m just not sure what the conference was aiming to accomplish aside from creating a buzz to counterpoint the message of the True Love Revolution.  All of these discussions end in the same conclusion -  wouldn’t it be great if girls were taught to identify and trust their own feelings and to behave in accordance with those feelings when it comes to sex?  Yes…but this is not possible for people who have not had sex before.  The ability to know and trust one’s own feelings about sex comes from having sex – and getting it wrong and then right and then wrong again.  Sure, people learn some things fooling around before they have sex.  And based on the stories that I receive, most girls feel as ready as they ever will be when they have sex that first time.  It’s only afterward that they can identify the aspects of sex they weren’t yet prepared for.

Simply put, no amount of sexual health education prepares anyone for the various ways individuals experience sex…and while trusting one’s feelings should be the goal over time, I’m not sure it’s completely applicable to the “virgin” experience.  Perhaps a better message might be that it’s alright to get it completely wrong the first time as mistakes are as common in sexual relationships as they are in math.  Furthermore, it’s OK to make twenty mistakes figuring out what feels right emotionally AND physically…personal value is not negated by those mistakes that are inevitable along the road to self-trust.

As for issues surrounding the definition of virginity – some think the term virginity should be done away with altogether because it’s definition is cloudy in many circumstances.  But this is never going to happen.  Our cultural identity is simply too defined by Judeo-Christian tradition.  People will not stop defining their first sexual experience as a loss of virginity.  Moreover, most people, straight and lesbian, seem to be able to define their own first times.  They may divide their virginity into multiple experiences or believe in multiple virginities, but they can tell a story about losing their virginity…whether it involves classic penal penetration or not.  I’m fine with allowing women to define this and I hope that the stories on my site empower young women to define their own virginity story however they see fit.

As for the term slut, and it’s use to induce female shame regarding sexual behavior, the feminist argument usually centers around a presumed cultural resistance to female pleasure.  But, I don’t think slut is used solely or even mostly to shame women who enjoy sex.  Rather, I think it is used to shame women who use sex for reasons other than pleasure (i.e. power, manipulation, commodity, experimentation).  Is this right, NO!  But it is a much more complicated issue than simple shaming over pleasure, which is clearly related to the desire to maintain patriarchal control.  More of my thoughts on this later.  But for now, suffice it to say that nuances in the term’s use need to be addressed for the conversation to become interesting and current to me.  Otherwise, it just feels hackneyed.

Perhaps I’m just not as interested in a theoretical discussion about issues of virginity and female sexuality because I believe the personal narrative more successfully challenges the status quo and changes the core views of individuals. For feminism to continue to advance it’s fundamental aims of seamless equality, those core views are what must change.  Deconstructing the past and theorizing about what equality would or should look like has it’s place in feminism, and on a different day, I might be excited to engage in such intellectual wonk talk…but today, I’d rather direct my energies elsewhere.