When the Movement Disappoints

134 thoughts on When the Movement Disappoints

1. Excellent post. I live in Florida, and trust me, it’s far, far worse here. It’s like Nazi Germany if you’re a feminist. Thank you for posting, and feel free to contact me!

   Laura Fausone, Brevard NOW

2. We have been running into this CONSTANTLY with the Walk For Choice. For the Boston event, both times we have approached groups and Women’s Studies professors who basically laughed us out of the room. (We had over a thousand protesters at the last walk, so the joke’s on them. But still.) Some people who are supposedly pro-choice have been actively hostile. We’re not trying to steal anyone’s thunder or hone in on anyone’s turf – this is a fairly-spontaneous event that came up in reaction to events happening RIGHT NOW, just people wanting to get out there and protest the bullshit that’s going on. With the internet, we can get out there on the street faster than a lot of these organizations can pull together. But since we’re organized on the internet, you would think we were children banging on pans or something. It’s so frustrating. Massachusetts feminist/pro-choice groups have actually been very helpful to us, but I know in a lot of other cities, they have been distinctly unhelpful. Planned Parenthood was very involved with our first walk, but they took several steps back immediately after – possibly we were too radical for them, or maybe just too young. Considering the majority of the organizers for Walk for Choice that I’ve encountered have been college students, this seems like the same pattern at work.

3. So true. I believe that so many young feminists are forced to either figure out employment that is completely different from their activism, try to be paid from their activism, or lead a distinctly double-life. Thinking that we should have reproductive justice AND working to achieve that justice for pay should not be considered controversial, it should be considered common sense.

4. Thank you for speaking up. This needed to be said and it is brilliant. Interestingly, I relate to this heavily even though I’m on the org side myself. I have been told I’m “too radical” before, multiple times, and always due to my personal stuff on the Internet, to the point where I have had speaking opportunities revoked by orgs other than my own.

   I think the cornerstone of successful feminism has always been radical participation — and by that I mean women fully empowered to speak from their experiences and perspectives. Articulated differences, nuances and personalities are a PLUS and not a MINUS. In short, the personal is still very political and encouraging that in all its diversity has the power to change the world. What the Internet allows us to do is really not all that different from participatory feminism, which has existed long before it. Mature orgs need to catch up and embrace it.

   I’m so glad you are exactly who you are. I think it was Gloria Steinem who said “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t referring to a boilerplate on a press release that had gone through several rounds of a rigorous approval process.

5. Double-lifer here.

6. Maybe they have found over time that the mouth hurts the money, and it’s the money that gets things done. As long as the money is coming from those who are more established and older it is safe to assume that a more radical approach isn’t going to work.

   Eventually the majority of donoars will be younger and things will be different.

   I personally find that Twitter is not an appropriate tool for anything that instigates complex emotions and I don’t think that is going to change.

7. I’m looking for a job. I deleted every blog that had my actual name attached. I started a new one that was unlikely to be traced to me (and promptly abandoned it because I’m not really a blogger). I deleted facebook because it’s completely littered with my propaganda. I consistently posted links that were pro-women, pro-choice, pro-liberal whatever. The difference, of course, is that the field I’m trying to enter tends to be extremely conservative (and dude-ful) and I didn’t want any bias to enter the hiring process. My field is still recovering and my resume isn’t terribly strong, so I need to be careful in all aspects of my application.

   That said – I think you’re forgetting that when you publicly blog with your actual name, you’re one google search away from being affiliated to your employer. That makes you a liability. It affects their reputation and potentially could result in legal ramifications for their organization. If I owned a company or ran a non-profit and didn’t have the resources to train people on what they should and shouldn’t be posting on the internet, I don’t think I’d be hiring anyone who refused to limit their online associations either. That’s not to say you DON’T know what to post – but if I were an employer, I would have no real way of knowing that.

8. I’m inclined to think this has little to nothing to do with your age, and everything to do with your activist background (and present!). Established institutions, including the ones dedicated or ostensibly dedicated to social justice and human rights, trend towards presenting a centrist face in order to maximize donations and minimize controversy.

   It’s a strategy that can backfire (see: the Democratic Party’s move to the right ever since Reagan’s election; the concurrent mainstream feminist movement divorcing itself from the primacy of working-class women’s issues since the defeat of the ERA).

   Had you been able to present yourself as a fresh young face without that pesky baggage of not-centrist-enough politics and/or practices, you may have met with more success (translation: activist older women aren’t catching any breaks, either).

9. Steph, you hit the nail on the head. I feel like I am in the same boat you once were in–except I am not well-known. When I first began my job search in NYC I was astonished to find that, as you say, “so many of the organizations I admire mirror the corporate world”. To hear that young feminists like me are not alone in this struggle, and someone as accomplished as you has had a hard time as well, it is comforting at the very least. However, I think it also is clear that we need to continue to shake things up!! Thank you for the great article.

10. Laura Fausone:
    Excellent post.I live in Florida, and trust me, it’s far, far worse here.It’s like Nazi Germany if you’re a feminist.

    Laura Fausone, Brevard NOW

    No Laura, it isn’t. Thanks.

11. Whoa! Godwined on the first response?

12. Part of it comes down to risk-averse behavior. These organizations believe that what power or influence they do have is increasingly on the decline. So the decisions they make are not to make continued progress and gain, but rather to preserve what they have.

    You’re right to point out that many people are afraid of New Media. They are unwilling to get rid of comfortable ways. People quickly fall into habit patterns, whether it be how they communicate with other organizations, or where they park on the company lot.

    When it comes down to you, they are afraid of bad publicity or a lawsuit. Which again falls under risk-averse behavior. Conflict isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Even if the media reports things unfavorably at first, one always has the chance to even the score. Regarding donors, with so many different organizations fighting for the same contributors, there will always be a tendency to shape policy and expression to not offend them. The same is true for advertisers in media outlets.

13. I suspect all your concerns are valid, and I don’t want to denigrate your rightful resentment at this treatment. But it occurs to me that there might be another dynamic at work also.

    One issue – among the others you’ve mentioned – may be that these organizations are concerned to control their public face – the way they are perceived or the message that people associate with them. They do this by carefully designating official spokespeople, issuing authorized statements that have been approved by their Boards or senior officials, and running all their statements and publications through an approval process and professional design and PR teams. This is not a bad thing: it produces a clear and effective message (say what you like about “PR” – it exists for a reason), and it ensures that what comes out of these organizations is something they’ve refined and officially endorsed. Typically, at major activist organizations, there are only a few people who are really recognizable by the public, and only a few people authorized to speak for the group.

    Bringing in someone who has a visible public profile outside the organization may encourage the public to associate that person and their position with the organization and its positions, even if they’re not officially speaking for the group in their private activism. That takes control of the public face of the organization away from the organization itself – a particular problem if the activist’s personal opinions are different from the official positions of the group, or are controversial.

    This is unfair, of course. You can certainly work for a group that has a different approach from yours, and you have a right to hold and express your personal beliefs in your own way. People ought to be able to distinguish the two, and organizations ought to accept that their staff may have their own views on things. But the right wing is always looking for ways to whip up controversy, and attacking organizations for the views of their employees is one of their favorites.

    Remember what happened to Amanda Marcotte when the religious right attacked the John Edwards campaign because she had criticized them on her personal blog (before even going to work for the campaign). Remember the recent attacks on NPR, and many many universities, for views expressed by their employees or professors. No organization wants to go through that, whether it’s fair or not. They may be leery of hiring someone who is perceived as a lightning rod. (And on that note, the statement “you have no voice on reproductive rights” may just have been a warning that, because you were not being hired into a position as an official spokesperson, you would not be allowed to make public statements for the organization.)

    I still agree that it’s unfair, but I think that this sort of dynamic is possibly a factor in what you’re experiencing, and I have to say I can see why that would be the case.

14. Who the girl in the logo pointing her pump action shot gun at, whoever it is they are out of frame .. so are we supposed to draw our own conclusions?

15. La Lubu, why would you make that assumption or claim that it has nothing to do with Steph’s age?

    Just because older activist women are not catching breaks, it doesn’t mean that younger ones are not discriminated against. One doesn’t have to cancel the other out. Your claim has no proof.

    I’m really sick of older people dismissing the experiences of younger women because ageism is supposed to be a structural discrimination directed at older people. Well no it is not.

16. It is directed at younger people too. Thanks.

17. It is the same in politics, to get to a position where you could change things you must tone your views down at least how you present them to the outside world. You must learn to toe the party line. You think to yourself it doesn’t matter when I am on the inside I will change things for the better. Getting there takes time and it’s not easy to live with such duality of mind. You begin to see, even appreciate how the system works, it shapes you, assimilates you. When you do get to the position you imagined you could change things from you find that you have too much to lose, that the system is impossible to break. You may create change but so small and so slowly that it doesn’t make a dent in all the shit that needs to be fixed.
    When you encounter new young blood who don’t know what you have been though you may well be intimidated and resent them for still believing in change or you may simply know that it is impossible and that they too will be swallowed up by the way things are.

    This is why so many Marxists have a problem with fabianism because it is impossible to effect change from within a system that is corrupt and wrong trying to do so will only draw you in. It must be raised to the ground by an outside revolutionary force driven by the will of the people. This principle could be applied to your situation, by pass the hypocricy of the situation and offer a real alternative.

18. I think the La Labu and Comrade Kevin make some important points: I don’t want to dismiss the possibility of age being a factor, at all, but/and I think there’s a big question about how large feminist organizations (like most large progressive organizations working on a variety of issues, and most general progressive policy orgs) are driven by the overall national political/electoral picture, which is so bleak it makes them very cautious, fighting defensive battles, scared of pissing off potential donors and wobbly Democratic supporters. It’s understandable, I guess, but incredibly frustrating. We need more grassroots orgs, more agitation by folks from all walks of life who would never consider themselves professional activists. Easier said than done, I realize.

19. It is absolutely directed at young people. I’ve been to interviews where people treated my activism as a phase. I totally feel you Steph! I live in the NYC area and the same thing happened to me. That’s ultimately why I decided to move away from activism as a career and more as an extra-curricular.

    Also: are you going to be at WAM? If so, hope to see you there 🙂

20. It is absolutely directed at young people. I’ve been to interviews where people treated my activism as a phase. I totally feel you Steph! I live in the NYC area and the same thing happened to me. That’s ultimately why I decided to move away from activism as a career and more as an extra-curricular.

    Also: are you going to be at WAM? If so, hope to see you there 🙂

21. By which I mean to add, Steph, thank you for your work, for sticking in there and finding the right job, for not becoming cynical on the whole idea of activism.

22. Thanks for sharing your experiences. As an active slightly older feminist, it is disheartening to hear that you (of all people!) would experience this sort of negative backlash. I would think that your “celebrity” would be a huge ace in the hole for these orgs, and it is really disturbing that you are finding that. Its disturbing to hear it from Erin, too. I hope that collectively we can change the landscape so that women being vocal for our rights and equality are not viewed as “extreme” any longer, but rather an obvious activity we should all participate in. Sadly, I think many women are afraid to speak up for exactly this sort of backlash.

23. Steph, thanks for saying this. I can totally relate. I agree that online activism makes us all a Google search away – but I disagree about “cleaning up” my online profile. I’ve lost several freelance gigs because the majority of my writing samples have gay or abortion stamped all over them. No way I can “clean it up” and still have something to show for my life. Besides, if I’m working someplace that doesn’t want my politics to come out – I’d never be able to open my mouth and/or look at someone in the face (my “eat shit and die” look is pretty deadly).

    Keep fighting the good fight, Steph. We need fierce, fearless feminists like you leading the movement when the geezers are ready to retire. They need to just pass the baton already!

24. I had a similar experience 15 years ago. What upsets me about some national reproductive justice groups is that they seem to be apologizing for the fact that women have abortions! And they don’t even want to talk about late-term abortion.

    Rights are being threatened now because the leadership of far too many national organizations have not stood strong.

    I believe in abortion on demand, without apology!

25. “Double-lifer here.”

    Me too. It sucks because people I like from work won’t ever get to actually know me – just the silent, non-committal persona I wear at work.

    To Kevin, et al: While you’re probably right about why such institutions would avoid people they consider a “lightening rod”, is it possible that this acquiescence and acceptance of the limits our enemies put on us is the reason that repro rights are increasingly non-existant in this country?

26. Claire N:
    It is directed at younger people too. Thanks.

    Claire,
    I think it is safe to say that ANY woman, no matter her age, if she has a radical, outspoken voice, is finding discrimination. Both sides have valid points and issues. Both sides have every reason to be upset about it. I am 40, I am graduating in 2 months with my degree and will seek employment. I am full expecting to have a difficult time finding a job. I will not retract my voice because of it. But, as women, especially women that agree on issues, there is little need to divide us even further. Just my 2 cents.

27. Can we all operate under the assumption that young women are treated differently, as are older women who are more radical? Let’s not buy into a divide and conquer strategy. We have much in common and need to work together!

28. Thank you for this post. I am currently participating in extracurricular activism — volunteering, blogging, tweeting, etc., but plan to go to grad school and become a professional activist. I think there is a very real possibility that I will face this issue, and i hope that over the next few years we can work together with existing organizations to make the climate more open for newcomers.

29. Organizations almost inevitably become conservative and protect their access and importance. Some of the most successful far right projects have been funds that have a limited lifespan, simply because they can’t worry about where they’ll be in twenty years because they are created to give all their money away and close. Activism is sort of antithetical to the go-along-to-get-along that is the strong draw of permanent institutions.

30. We live in a world of “Gotcha” activism and media, where lots of people are doing their best to “catch” the other side doing something wrong. This is what happened to NPR, to Acorn, to Planned Parenthood, and also to Juan Williams (regardless of whether you agree with the outcome).

    It is now really easy to track what people have said and use it against them. This doesn’t really matter when it is just one person, but when a business or organization hires someone, in today’s world, everything that you say or said can now be tied directly to them. If an employee says something that can be construed as over the line (NPR’s fundraiser in the latest video scandal is a perfect example), it can and will be used to damage the employer. Every organization thus has to do everything they can to protect their reputation, particularly when credibility and dollars are on the line.

    This is going to be primarily an issue that affects younger people (although the NPR guy is not young) because younger people are the ones who have really created the blogosphere. Young people today leave a digital trail that older people just don’t have, even old radical people. Not having your history of thought on the internet is a luxury that older people have just by a fluke of when we were born. Older people did radical things and said radical (and sometimes inappropriate) stuff, it just doesn’t show up on Google. But often, older folks act like this was a decision they made, not a quirk of history.

    Young people today are the transitioners who will struggle and be punished as society moves into a new, lay it all out there kind of world. It isn’t explicitly because you are young, it is because you are young TODAY. I don’t envy you, but I know you can make a huge difference because you are forced to be bolder.

31. Look, as an older woman I have a *strong* visceral reaction to the conflation of age with centrism or mainstream, milquetoast caution. If you think you’re being singled out for your *age* rather than your activism….trust this: you’re not going to be any less pissed off when you’re over forty, have a lifetime of skin in the game and the scars to prove it, and you’re catching flak for not having “grown out of” your radical goals. And sometimes, that flak is going to come from people your age or *younger*.

32. I’m in my early twenties and used to be very involved with environmental activism. I quit because what I wanted and my views were “too radical.” I completely understand what you are going through.

33. You definitely shouldn’t have to eschew all pro-choice activism (especially NYAAF!), and trying to rejuvenate the goals and values of mainstream organizations is a valid pursuit, but…

    1) Why would you think you could move to NYC and land a job you love within a few weeks? There are hundreds, maybe thousands of talented, committed people vying for the same few jobs, some of whom have been searching for months or years. It seems like a very privileged assumption to think that you could walk into a job within a few weeks.

    2) The plight you describe isn’t specific to new media, or to young feminists. I’d assume the same would apply to older women and men working in these organizations, and to staff members who want to publish op-eds, write letters to the editor, etc.

    3) Working for an organization often means prioritizing the organization’s goals and public image, sometimes over your own. Reproductive rights organizations have a particular interest in this because their work and very livelihood often depends on message control. Being a public figure associated with an organization brings with it responsibilities to the organization.

34. The way I see it is like this – those feminists who back in the early 70’s fought the good fight and won – did so because of their times and their tactics/actions. Maybe you were denied because you do not fit into their paradigm of what an activist is *supposed* to do because those in charge acheived victory in their time with methods much different from todays’ activism?

    Times have changed. It takes a collaboration between the old guard and the new to keep moving forward. Frankly, I think the pro-choice movement has become static and inflexible. I think the pro-choice PR is a decade or so behind and like BAC stated – it is as if these organizations are appologizing for women haing abortions.

    The anti-choice crowd, however has been aggressive, swift and relentless in its campaigns. They are ALWAYS on the offensive, rarely on the DEFENSIVE.

    I would like to see pro-choice get moving offensively, instead of hoping that someday somehow the FOCA will be passed and then all our troubles will be behind us. Why not go after what the antis have been doing? They are doing everything possible to make it IMpossible for women to have abortions – from petty laws on ultrasounds to lies about breast cancer linked to abortion. Now I do NOT advocate pro-choice lying – but what about taking THEIR tactics and using it to make abotion MORE EASILY ACCESIBLE for women? HOw about mandating, by LAW that any – and I said ANY – clinic offering ultrasounds be mandated to have a salaried, licensed sonogram technician on staff to perform them? This way if there IS a problem with a pregnancy – that technician is QUALIFIED and BOUND BY LAW to PROTECT THE WOMAN PATIENT by referring her to a physician who can help her in WHATEVER choice she may make. How about mandated counseling? HOw about a counterbalance to anti-choice mandated counseling? How about independent council mandated BY LAW be given to a woman deciding what to do AT THE SAME TIME she is mandated to listen to anti-choice propaganda?

    Anyone catch my drift? INstead of always getting emails on how to fight teh latest attacks – it sure would be nice to receive some emails about upcoming/ongoing offensives on anti-choice efforts.

    Frankly, every pro-choice organization needs to read and be familiar with the Art of War by Tsung Tzu. The antis certainly are…

35. please consider not just holding this to YOUNG activists. I face this all the time – I am 62. The only way we are going to break through this is to be out – out in every way. We have make it clear that we own our bodies, we have abortions, we are not criminals.
    I have had two abortions, as I am apt to say, they were neither tragic or trivial.
    Thank you for your bravery, your relentless adherence to the truth.

36. Hi Tara! Good to have you here. All valid points, and I hope I didn’t convey a privileged or excluding tone. I obviously knew I wasn’t going to find a job in a few weeks — I said that above to convey my enthusiasm for moving to a place with so many opportunities to be involved in the movement.

    All of that aside, I still believe we need to find space as a movement to incorporate individual opinions about how to best and most successfully advocate for reproductive justice. It seems to me like a lot of the messaging/message control that the big organizations are employing is just not working.

    I also think the movement would be stronger if “message control” grew to incorporate allowing diverse voices to speak without approval, from within big organizations and from the outside. I hope this post can help get that conversation started.

37. want to add –
    This is not particular to YOUNG activists in the women’s movement. It is across the board of all intersections of oppression, the truth tellers are labeled radicals and held at arms length. Carted out to speak to invigorate the mid-liners and embolden those who are thinking of being brave. It is holy work.

38. Everything you say is true–young, fiery activists are the ones who really cause this country to change. The fogeys who work within the system, as we’re so wont to do when we’re old and tired, feel past it–but they don’t remember their own grunty legwork from those days, or they feel their dedication was naive.

    And this social media thing is definitely a concern for all of us. We all have to make a living. I generally put my blog on my resume–if someone’s looking for reasons not to hire me by digging through my social media use (linked from the blog), and they’re conservative–at all–they probably won’t hire me. That might be a good thing. After all these years, I’ve learned that if they don’t want a passionate, opinionated employee, they don’t want me.

    I’m glad you’ve found your place. Good luck with those Brooklynites.

39. Steph Herold: I also think the movement would be stronger if “message control” grew to incorporate allowing diverse voices to speak without approval, from within big organizations and from the outside. I hope this post can help get that conversation started.

    And how do you reduce the risk for the organizations that allow this? The ones that face losing funding because they can’t do anything about their staffers shooting their mouths off in an inappropriate way or the staffers who inappropriately invoke the organization and say something that can get the organization sued?

    The problem I have is that it seems that you either feel entitled to have a job even though you’re an elevated risk factor to the organizations you’re considering or that you want to continue speaking out under a name that is backed by a legitimate organization in the same field as your activism. Why not blog under a pseudonym?

    And while we’re focusing on not getting hired for your online activities, I want to point out that people are getting fired or simply aren’t being hired because of their online activities all the time.

    tl;dr: it’s probably not your activism so much as the fact that you can easily and inadvertently dick over your company.

    What kills me is that one company actually told you that you’d be a liability because of your published public opinion and you didn’t explore that at all.

40. Well, for one, let’s be clear that women in the 20s and 30s are not in any way institutionally oppressed by ageism in the workplace. Workplace ageism, by definition, is something is experience by older workers. In the context of activist work, older women are institutionalize discriminated against *because* they are believed to be not active enough or stodgy or milquetoast. So, let’s get that out of the way, before we can even talk about the complicated way that radical activism and mainstream activism-as-employment intersect.

    I personally am lucky that I was hired because I am a radical and to work in an organization with a radical philosophical bent. That said, I do not use my real name in online writings. I am discrete with my online presence and I do not ever speak “as” an employee of my organization. I think it’s completely reasonable for an organization with large visibility to be very, very hesitant in hiring a staff member who post easily googleable, controversial things. They would be equally unlikely to hire someone who wouldn’t stop speaking at real-life events. We do live in an age when right-wingers with video cameras are always watching to take you down.

    That’s the limitation of large, mainstream organizations. They have their place. But we shouldn’t put too much faith in them.

41. Ruby: Everything you say is true–young, fiery activists are the ones who really cause this country to change. The fogeys who work within the system, as we’re so wont to do when we’re old and tired, feel past it–but they don’t remember their own grunty legwork from those days, or they feel their dedication was naive.

    … wtf?

    Except for the “fogeys” who are still fighting? Who are still fucking living it? Ageist crap rains down on people for being too young *and* too old.

    Maybe go read the “Compassion Fatigue” thread to get some perspective on activist burnout too.

42. Zoe Nicholson:
    want to add –
    This is not particular to YOUNG activists in the women’s movement. It is across the board of all intersections of oppression, the truth tellers are labeled radicals and held at arms length. Carted out to speak to invigorate the mid-liners and embolden those who are thinking of being brave. It is holy work.

    For sure it’s not particular to young activists. But the archetype of the young activist is certainly fiery and outspoken.

43. Sadly Steph, this mindset isn’t just targeted to the young. I’m 55, and still get frowned upon for my “radical” views among some in the pro-choice community. They want you to be in lockstep with them, something a Feminist can not tolerate.
    A radical Feminist? Is there any other kind? That’s what I love about NOW, my radical Feminist voice is welcomed, never censored.
    Don’t give up Steph, and never give in to them. It’s us Radicals that get things done, someone has to play offense. Too often the pro-choice org’s are so afraid of it, and too consumed with playing defense.
    And Erintothemax, RIGHT ON!

44. Jadey: … wtf?

    Except for the “fogeys” who are still fighting? Who are still fucking living it? Ageist crap rains down on people for being too young *and* too old.

    Maybe go read the “Compassion Fatigue” thread to get some perspective on activist burnout too.

    Maybe you should stop taking things so personally. I didn’t say old people, I said old fogeys, and there were a lot of other descriptors, too. If you think age doesn’t lead to *some* people becoming less radical and more willing to make crappy compromises, then you’re blindly defending people because they’re older, which is just as ageist as what you *think* I’m doing.

    But thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll try to ignore the spirit in which it was given.

45. I’m not taking anything personally – I’m 24 years old and probably not considered old by anyone who isn’t in grade school.

    I’m irritated by your apparent slagging of older activists, whether they work within the system or not*, especially after similar issues have been pointed out repeatedly in this thread as problematic. Other people in this thread have also talked about the ageist comments made about older activists, like La Lubu and Zoe Nicholson, so you might want to also consider the context in which your comment was made.

    The Compassion Fatigue thread is at that link – it isn’t a book. I suggested it because you also seemed to mocking people who were tired and burned out from activism.

    *I agree with Thomas that activists who work within long-standing institutions tend to be more conservative because the longevity of their organization is at stake. The need to get refunded every one or five years in order to keep your organization in existence and keep you in a job can kill a lot of radicalism. But that’s not restricted by age.

46. Sorry, the Compassion Fatigue thread link is here.

47. PrettyAmiable: The problem I have is that it seems that you either feel entitled to have a job even though you’re an elevated risk factor to the organizations you’re considering or that you want to continue speaking out under a name that is backed by a legitimate organization in the same field as your activism. Why not blog under a pseudonym?

    I’m surprised that the reaction to this post is to not question HOW organizations can and should incorporate activist voices into their folds but rather how activists need to get with the program, make themselves “legitimate”, and hide their activism behind a carefully constructed screen.

    Because Steph doesn’t want to do those things, she shouldn’t be allowed to question HOW things work within the movement? There’s no entitlement here – at least in my reading. Instead, she is simply asking us to seriously consider what the movement is doing when it only contains a certain set of voices in its “legitimate” sphere.

    I think that is a worthy discussion to be had.

48. This. Seconded and with an eleventy thrown in.

    La Lubu:
    Look, as an older woman I have a *strong* visceral reaction to the conflation of age with centrism or mainstream, milquetoast caution. If you think you’re being singled out for your *age* rather than your activism….trust this: you’re not going to be any less pissed off when you’re over forty, have a lifetime of skin in the game and the scars to prove it, and you’re catching flak for not having “grown out of” your radical goals. And sometimes, that flak is going to come from people your age or *younger*.

    It breaks my heart that so many of the organizations I admire mirror the corporate world: they are just as hierarchical and scared of the power of young people.

    Steph, as a soon-to-be 42-year-old woman, I can assure you, people my age and older are just as outspoken. That’s not a characteristic only 20-somethings have.

    Everything you say is true–young, fiery activists are the ones who really cause this country to change. The fogeys who work within the system, as we’re so wont to do when we’re old and tired, feel past it–but they don’t remember their own grunty legwork from those days, or they feel their dedication was naive.

    Ruby, I’ve been lectured by many activists–including those 15-20 years my junior–about how impractical I am for thinking it’s a good idea to organize for change (instead of shop/not shop for it), how I should just relax and stop being so skeptical of corporations (they will listen to market forces) or how I’m part of a circular firing squad for expressing skepticism over Democratic centrism and working with the far right, since I remember that crap back in the nineties under Clinton. Age has fuck all to do with this.

49. If you think age doesn’t lead to *some* people becoming less radical and more willing to make crappy compromises, then you’re blindly defending people because they’re older, which is just as ageist as what you *think* I’m doing.

    I’ve seen that same behavior in twenty-somethings–and I get irritated with people who insist that young people are really naive and accept the status quo without question, and approach things in a far more conservative, pro-corporate way. In fact, that’s just as irritating as hearing how people my age and older are apparently tired, willing to give up or sell out, and simply not firey or passionate.

    Age has fuck-all to do with it. Stop acting like a fucking douchecanoe.

50. Luckily I didn’t say anything about activists needing to make themselves legitimate. Did anyone?

    She can question how things work within the movement – but she doesn’t do that. She complains that things aren’t going her way. If she were curious about how things work within corporate organizing, I would have expected that she at least address the following:

    What are the legal ramifications for letting all employees do whatever they want online?
    What are the funding ramifications?
    How does this balance in terms of the cost/benefit analysis? Can we change the costs and benefits?

    I want to point out that she doesn’t give any evidence for these orgs refusing to hire different voices – or even younger voices. There’s nothing in this post about how a young person joined a major activist organization and immediately had zir voice discounted, or about a young person getting turned away simply for being young and committed.

    She gave evidence of companies trying to cover themselves from people who can negatively impact operations by virtue of their online activity.

51. Sheelzebub: Age has fuck-all to do with it. Stop acting like a fucking douchecanoe.

    Whatever the hell a douchecanoe is, I will do my darndest at your gracious request.

    I have a tremendous respect for older people, especially older activists who lead movements with the energy of people half their age. You’re all jumping on a bandwagon, congratulating yourselves for your lack of ageism. Let me tell you, being older does make you more tired. You have more responsibilities and more ties to the world to consider with every move. Risks are risky, not just fun and flamboyant. This is my own experience I’m speaking from here, as well as my own observations of others that I’ve watched age along with me.

    Some people retain that fire, people like Zoe, whom I admire greatly. Sorry if I’m new to your discussion space and touching on old topics that have already been hashed out, re-pressing those buttons. But no, after the shitty welcome I’ve received here, I won’t be reading those threads or delving further.

    Steph, good luck, and stay out of the douchecanoe.

52. Shorter Ruby: “I said BROADS, not women! Y’know, dames, floozies, skirts. Whaddya gettin’ all upset about? I wasn’t talkin’ about you, geez, don’t take it so *personal*.”

53. I’m a lot younger than some folks here and a lot older than others. People have been trying to tell me for my entire life that when I get to be their age I’ll think more like them, and their predictive powers have not been better than random. I suspect people won’t be any better at predicting what I think form my age in my 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and longer if I last. Age as a unit of analysis here is deeply flawed and insulting. I’ve already said my piece: I believe it is a matter of institutional psychology.

54. YOu know it is all fine and good to say that a company has a policy to restrict the views and commentary of its staff via outside communication media – Twitter, Blogs, Facebook, etc.

    However, do the anti-choicers (since the author was focusing her search on pro-choice advocacy associations) also have such stipulations? Do they screen their young candidates – or older ones too – because they might be too radical? I have a sneaking suspicion that NO, they do not. If anything a lax lifestyle, or non-militant view is seen as a liability for them. So why is it justified tostate that a person’s personal bloggings/tweets/FB posts might be a *tad* too much for pro-choice? Frankly, I have yet to meet a radical pro-choicer….

    So why, if my presumption is correct about anti-choicers, should pro-choice exclude candidates for employment because they have the pride and ggumption to stand behind their beliefs? Shit….I’ll be willing to bet dollars to krispy kremes that if you are an anti – you sure as damn well better be active and out there tweeting/blogging/protesting against abortion and all those who stand behind choice.

    And as far as I can see – the antis have no problem raising money – even when one of their “faithful” assasinates a doctor….

55. I’ll admit to being something of an idealist here: I feel that as human beings we should be able to speak about issues that concern us regardless of who we work for. WTF is going on if people can’t distinguish between an employee stating an opinion (online or elsewhere) and when they speak for the company?

    E.g. When it comes to footballers (I’m in Australia and many are total douches…I get the impression this isn’t limited to Australia) I dislike the individual for wrongdoing and only get angry at the team/orgainisation if they then support the behaviour (or if the behaviour is encouraged tacitly or otherwise by the organisation). This isn’t some kind of weird logical yoga – this is simple, isn’t it? And do we really have to pander to people who can’t make this distinction? I’m aware that there are many people who can’t, but as someone else pointed out the pro-lifers have a tendency toward double standards – they are perfectly happy to spout hatred etc. but then put their sad-faces on when an abortion provider is attacked, and argue that the person holding the gun was not part of their movement.

    I feel that any organisation (particularly a pro-choice one) is losing out if they, as a matter of course, shut down radical voices.

56. Can I make an analogy to publishing for a moment? (Not my day job, just the other half of my RSS feed.)

    It seems like we’re at a crossroads. It’s a bit like self-publishing vs established agency/publisher model. A lot of authors are realising it isn’t either/or or print or die, but a question of finding the way which best suits your skillset.

    I’m afraid, though some have taken exception to the way the views were presented, I’m agreeing with a lot of what PrettyAmiable said – as regards large profile corporate organisations. You’re joining an organisation with an established identity and aims. Whatever you do within it is intended to contribute to that aim. One of the major sacrifices anyone makes to be part of an org with that much weight is to accept and ensure that your professional identity doesn’t undermine the organisation you choose to work for – and it’s a *choice.* If you choose to blog about issues that cross over into your professional remit under your professional name, you are speaking in a professional capacity and you might – might – undermine your organisation.

    There are lots of ways to make your politics your day job – what I think we need to start looking at are ways to do that that *aren’t* mainstream, which does suit some people whose skillset *isn’t* public communication but is something else essential to an org’s success (admin, logistics, copy-writing, a hundred other things).

    New media, new technologies – these have a shaping effect on how we communicate and how we form our identities and lives, what we feel we have the right to say. Maybe the result of that is that the corporate model doesn’t work for you. Maybe this is a good thing and gives us the chance to try other models, create other types of orgs that can work towards equally valid goals. Which is a pretty statement of something fraught with practical issues, but I think it’s possibly a more positive direction for thought. I’m not saying that anti-radicalism in employment practices is a good thing – it’s not – but that we are lucky enough to live in times where aligning yourself to a centrally-organised message is not the only possible narrative for a politically-aware career.

57. ElleBeME: And as far as I can see – the antis have no problem raising money – even when one of their “faithful” assasinates a doctor….

    Is there support for this? Did any of the mainstream anti-choice groups have members who officially sanctioned Dr. Tiller’s murder (for instance, as he was the most recent in the US) without facing any repercussions? If so, do we know what their donations looked like before and after?

58. My comment meaning that they do not seem to lose streams of revenue when a MD is killed, or laws passed to limit choice. If anything, the more radical they get, the more draconian their laws (that they get passed) become – their funding grows. Instead of being swept aside as the lunatic fringe – they hang on.

    Local representative Bob Marshall of Virginia’s House of Delegates a few months ago stated that children who were born with disabilities were a punishment to their mother – a punishment given by God – if they had ever had an abortion. What happened? The moderates and the pro-choice community expressed outrage. What did his local church do and the pro-life community? They rallied around Marshall and told the media what he said was taken completely WRONG. Marshall is closely alligned with American Life League (ALL) through his personal connections and that of his highly active anti-choice catholic Church All Saints. ALL and All Saints provided cover for his statement. The revenue stream – from churches, or individuals did not decrease. Keep/Toss.

59. Sooo no support for the claim that mainstream anti-choice groups don’t lose any funding when something ridiculously fringe happens in their group?

    I’m pushing because I don’t really believe this is true.

    The difference, I suppose, is that when I think of the two groups in your comments, they’re already fringe/radical conservative groups. I wouldn’t be surprised that they would flock to protect their own fringe and radical supporters. It’s in line with their image and mission. NARAL and NOW, for example, aren’t inherently fringe and radical. They don’t benefit from protecting fringe members the way ALL would, for instance. In fact, importantly, they could lose funding and could be devastated by legal action. Frankly, these groups do so much good that I can’t bring it in me to care that they’re not willing to put so much at risk in order to hire someone who doesn’t support their mission enough to blog under a pseudonym instead.

    The OP laments that these organizations won’t sign on for the digital age when the digital age does so much good. It states that there is a marginalization of radical voices in the organized women’s movement. I can’t be the only one that thinks the answer isn’t to demand organizations change their identity at their expense, right? Why wouldn’t you start your own non-profit? If the internet is the perfect medium for organizing, you theoretically would be able to put together a team that supports this mission. The reason internet activism is special is because it doesn’t have to stay on the internet. It can go brick-and-mortar too.

60. There’s been some good comments about organizations and risk-adverse behavior, but one thing to keep in mind is that Steph is not just anyone who wants to work for a pro-choice org and is dismayed to find out she won’t have a voice *outside* the org. Steph has a proven track record of being a successful online organizer for pro-choice issues. She has thousands of followers on twitter and readers of her blog.

    I bet if I just anyone applied for a job with a pro-choice org they *wouldn’t* be told quite so boldly “You will have no voice within this org how things are done.” But that would be the situation. They are treating Steph, again someone with a *proven record of success* as the same as anyone.

    Here’s the question that Steph is essentially putting to the pro-choice organizations. For corporations, the goal of making money is assumed. Therefore anything that smacks of risk is abhorrent to that goal. This makes sense (although doesn’t sound like much fun).

    But what Steph is saying to political non-profits is whether that model really fits with THEIR structure. How can a political organization succeed while also being RISK-ADVERSE? Call it President John Kerry Mentality.

    All of the large progressive non-profits (even the non-large ones) are TOP-DOWN. That means that all messaging and strategy decisions are made by the Executive Director, Policy Director, Communications Director (and sometimes by the board influenced by the big donors…”you want us to write about the Personhood Movement in Florida…well it’s not quite such a big deal down there…um…you’re giving us $50,000…okay…”)

    TOP-DOWN structures do work, but they limit all their creativity, all their energy to essentially just the people at the top. This drains the energy out of the workers under them who are gonna lose most of their energy for “the movement” if they don’t get to conceive and carry out plans of their own. It won’t happen when your 25. But by the time you’re 30? 35? How long are you going to work in a pro-choice organization until you get to be the one carrying out the ideas to fruition?

    Of course here’s what the Exe. director would say directly to all you “young hoppers” who work in pro-choice orgs but bristle under the constraints. “You want to get paid for all this work? You think it’s so easy to get donors? You think people are lining up to give out grants for Abortion-related causes? Then start your own org and see how easy it is to talk-off-the-cuff and keep the check-writers happy. I have 40-100 people working in this org and I can’t afford to lose a $1 million donation because I have to defend to an 80-year-old why a 26-year-old said something on Twitter.”

    This is a position that makes sense ONLY if you believe that keeping the organization afloat is the only goal of the organization.

61. Abortion On Demand, that’s a fair critique of the nonprofit industrial complex. It shares a lot of similarities to my critiques of business unionism. However, this:

    one thing to keep in mind is that Steph is not just anyone…..Steph has a proven track record of being a successful online organizer for pro-choice issues. She has thousands of followers on twitter and readers of her blog.

    Pardon me, but so what? I’m just some nobody out in the sticks. I’ve never heard of her before she posted on this blog. That’s ok; we travel in decidedly different circles. But…words can’t describe how less than impressed I am to hear about the numbers someone has on his or her social media. Not just ‘cuz I’m an old fart, and a midwestern one at that. it’s because reading blogs does not necessarily translate into action.

    I’m in the labor movement. I don’t have a twitter, and damn few people read my blog (which is to be expected; I rarely post on it. I’m a single parent, work two jobs since one isn’t providing me with enough hours lately, my mother is terminally ill—I got a full plate). I pretty much come to Feministe the same way I’d go to the neighborhood bar—hang out with the folks I know, shoot the shit, maybe argue a little, maybe learn something, commiserate, decompress.

    And I don’t think that’s so uncommon. A lot of folks use the internet and social media to stay connected or informed—but it isn’t the bedrock of their lives the way it is for the folks who are making (or trying to make) a living at it. Being wrapped up in the social media world sets you apart from the folks living their daily lives in much the same way being an officer of a large organization does.

    We’ve got some local enthusiastic young people in college around here who are somehow involved with MoveOn. I have been thoroughly unimpressed with their organizing abilities, despite their probably rather lengthy lists of who’s following them on what media. They couldn’t get enough people out to hold a respectable demonstration at gunpoint. Why? Because they think they’ve already done the work if they posted it somewhere on the internet, and shame on the people who aren’t “following” them.

    Here’s the thing: out of those followers, very, very few are going to give up a day’s work (and a day’s pay) to go out and do something that actually threatens the establishment on any level. Say what you want about us crusty old union people and civil rights people, but we know how to get people out the door and into the street. Even when it costs them. We have extensive networks, most of which rely on face-to-face contact, with texts and Facebook postings as a tool to supplement the pre-existing physical contact.

    Organizing on college campuses is fine, but if you want to build the critical mass necessary for an actual movement, you have to roll up your sleeves and get down-and-dirty. A damn good part of the reason why the abortion rights movement has been dying on the vine for the past thirty years is because it has little to no visibility outside of college campuses. Also, because it doesn’t present itself as part of the greater struggle for reproductive justice—not just whether or when to have children, but also how to provide for those children that one does have. When you frame your message in terms of “having the right to an abortion will give you control over your life”….and most of the women receiving that message look around at their lives and think, “bullshit. my job is still on the line. the rent needs to be paid, my car just broke down again. grocery prices and gas prices are through the roof. and I haven’t been fucking for awhile anyway…so the right to have an abortion isn’t going to give me shit. what I really need, is child care”…..you just lost your audience.

62. Pingback: Rabbits Pulling Magic Outta Hats « La Lubu

63. >>This is a position that makes sense ONLY if you believe that keeping the organization afloat is the only goal of the organization.

    No, it makes sense if keeping your organization afloat is A goal. And I frankly don’t understand why you’re implying that it isn’t worthy.

    Again, to me it seems as if we’re upset that people who have already organized aren’t willing to cater to our needs, but we’re also not willing to organize for ourselves where we see a gap in non-profits. It’s like we’re expecting someone else to take all the risk and aren’t willing to bear any ourselves.

    And also, what La Lubu said. Sorry, but I’ve never heard of Steph before. That’s not to say she doesn’t have a following; I’m pretty sure some of the commenters on this thread are here because of her. But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be a potential threat to the organization.

64. Abortion On Demand:
    Of course here’s what the Exe. director would say directly to all you “young hoppers” who work in pro-choice orgs but bristle under the constraints. “You want to get paid for all this work? You think it’s so easy to get donors? You think people are lining up to give out grants for Abortion-related causes? Then start your own org and see how easy it is to talk-off-the-cuff and keep the check-writers happy. I have 40-100 people working in this org and I can’t afford to lose a $1 million donation because I have to defend to an 80-year-old why a 26-year-old said something on Twitter.”

    This is a position that makes sense ONLY if you believe that keeping the organization afloat is the only goal of the organization.

    But keeping the organization afloat IS and SHOULD BE the main goal of any organization! You are accountable to your donors and funders and your activists to spend their money and time wisely — anyone who thinks that isn’t their goal as an exec director has no business being an exec director!

    Look, I hear what Steph is saying in many ways. I’ve talked to her about it a little (Hi, Steph!) but the fact is, anyone who thinks a choice organization should have any staffer of any level publicly representing the org with no oversight really must not understand how nonprofits are funded and run. (And actually, any company does the same thing – if you have a recognizable name online that can be linked to your employer you damn well better have a tagline on your twitter page saying “views are my own”).

    Steph is a unique example because she has an online/media presence but (my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong) not the organizational experience that hiring managers were probably looking for. I can understand how it would be challenging to figure out how someone like that fits into a staff. That said, some of the things she reports were said to her are completely unacceptable and I do believe she is an asset to an organization (and they are lucky to have her!). But I can understand why some people had some concerns or stipulations and I suspect other up- and comers will have to face similar circumstances.

    I also need to comment on this:
    “2. The thought of new leadership coming in means the old leadership has to go somewhere, and, well, where would they go?”

    I feel like there’s this strange misunderstanding among some young feminists (I’m 31, btw, not sure if I still count as a “young fem”) that feminist orgs are either staffed by young people (a la Choice USA) or 70 year olds. This is decidedly NOT the case. Nine times out of ten when I am sitting in a coalition meeting of fairly high-level staffers at choice orgs we are mostly in our 30s and 40s, and frankly, i get a little pissed at the #youngfem contingent who thinks they should be the leaders. Um, no. I’ve worked in this field for 10 tears and still have something to say and lots to contribute. The constant focus on #youngfems completely disregards the mid-career professionals who have been busting their buts for 10+ years, and I think serves more to divide then unite.

    I say this not to discount young feminists – obvs I think they are awesome, and heck, some people might still consider me to be one– but I don’t see the pitting of us vs old feminists as just a one-way street, you know?

65. Needed perspective by La Lubu as usual & Kelly.

    The Progressive blogosphere is strange in some ways. A while back, there was a post on Daily Kos from an older woman who worked at a pro-choice organization who was upset that not enough younger women responded to her idea for a counter-protest outside an abortion clinic. From this she concluded that younger women just didn’t care about reproductive rights. The post got recc’d all the way up to the list of top posts, (more out of personal sympathy for a long time reproductive rights advocate and respected site member I think) and I was one of the few who tried to point out that it just wasn’t the case that young women as a category weren’t interested.

    That said, what I got from Steph’s post wasn’t young vs. old but organic activism vs. big organizations under attack by right wing hacks who will exploit any potential vulnerability to create havoc in the right wing media. You know like, “OMG an employee of X said Y!!! How dare employees have independent thoughts!” It’s wrong but in today’s Fox-dominated news environment it’s effective. They’ll do the lobbying and provide the services but at the end of the day perhaps they’re not the best place to do activism? There should be a stream of money devoted solely to activism as separate from services and lobbying.

66. Kelly: But keeping the organization afloat IS and SHOULD BE the main goal of any organization!

    but thats the problem right there. the main goal of any MOVEMENT should be accountability to the communities they are helping. The main goal of any *business* (and that’s what 501c3s *are*) is to “stay afloat.” And what that means is accountability to advisory boards, investors, funders, etc.

    The question is–can a business ever act as a legitimate stand in for millions of people standing in a square together shutting down a city until their needs are met. Seeing as abortion rights are steadily increasingly under attack and lost in the 30-40 years since “the movement” has shifted into 501c3 dominated organizing? I’d say the answer is a resounding no.

    Which is not to say that those who work at 501c3s or 501c3s in and of themselves are useless or wrong or any other negative thing. It is to say–a business centered model of organizing 1. doesn’t work and 2. emphasizes accountability to the very things that many if not most social justice communities have strong critiques of. And so I’m unsure of how business centered organizing can be called any sort of movement–and the place *of* those business within a movement should be to act *in support of* and *on the peripheries* of the movement rather than as its driving force.

67. bfp: but thats the problem right there. the main goal of any MOVEMENT should be accountability to the communities they are helping. The main goal of any *business* (and that’s what 501c3s *are*) is to “stay afloat.” And what that means is accountability to advisory boards, investors, funders, etc.

    I agree in many ways – and certainly did not mean to conflate a movement with advocacy or political organizations. They are indeed not the same thing, though I think they are part of each other and each benefits from the work of the other in many ways. Movements can influence organizations and vice versa. Organizations have the political contacts and power to affect legislation and elections in ways that a movement by itself couldn’t. I think it’s a natural and needed progression for movements to become professionalized.

68. Kelly: I think it’s a natural and needed progression for movements to become professionalized.

    why?

69. bfp: Kelly: I think it’s a natural and needed progression for movements to become professionalized.

    why?

    and for clarity: i mean, “why is it a natural and needed progression for movements to become professionalized?”

70. I think it’s a natural and needed progression for movements to become professionalized.

    Capitalism as it exists in the States now is often extremely limiting to social justice movements, precisely because it demands that movements become professionalized. We can’t be effective if we can’t pay our rent, and we can’t be effective if we can’t work on this stuff full time, but we can’t work on it full time and pay our rent unless rich people and corporations give us the money to do so.

    The 501(c)(3) structure pretty much guarantees that the wealthy will have more influence over the nonprofit world. And, of course, wealth is very much determined by one’s relative oppression or lack thereof. The deck is stacked against change. Even the biggest repro rights organization is outfunded a thousand times by their opposition, and the current system virtually guarantees that women marginalized on account of any aspect of their identity other than their gender will never have a meaningful voice in the nonprofit “movement.”

    Not to say that nonprofits are useless. They are part of a larger strategy. But we have to have a larger strategy that recognizes the limitations we’re working with if we go the nonprofit route.

    I’d highly recommend INCITE’s work on the nonprofit system, and Andrea Smith’s work on reproductive justice.

71. bfp: and for clarity: i mean, “why is it a natural and needed progression for movements to become professionalized?”

    Because the people who are part of movements need to make a living. Because someone needs to organize — spend their time and energy — on the goals of the movement and those people shouldn’t be expected to do that for free. Because in order to be successful, a movement needs to find ways to incorporate people of all walks of life who can give varying degrees of time and energy to the movement. Because all of this work takes money. Because tracking, analyzing, and drafting legislation takes skills and should be rewarded. Because training people on how to lobby and what to say takes skills and should be rewarded. Because researching the efficacy of emergency contraception and whether it has affected rates of unintended pregnancy takes skills and should be rewarded.

72. Kelly, I agree with some of what you said; many labor unions pay full-time officers to handle daily business (titles vary depending on the union) because the work of the union (defending workers’ rights, organizing the unorganized, negotiating and maintaining contracts, etc.) really does require having some people do that work during the daytime, when others are on the clock.

    But not all unions function that way. Some don’t have paid, full-time staff at the Local level, because they can’t afford it and/or the way their workplace is structured doesn’t require it. My father was the president of his Local a few different times, but it wasn’t a paid position. He did it anyway. My mother (and her mother, and I) was a steward; none of us were ever paid for that work (other than being paid on the job for steward work, as per contract). People are limited in how much unpaid work they can do, but they will do it, if they believe in it.

    Because in order to be successful, a movement needs to find ways to incorporate people of all walks of life who can give varying degrees of time and energy to the movement.

    I see that as one of the great failings of the nonprofit industrial complex and of business unionism. It doesn’t incorporate people of all walks of life. It follows a “hero(ine)” model, with a few Bright Lights in positions of (forgive me) great majesty, with a relative handful of paid staffers and true believers who get burned out bigtime—but more importantly, it doesn’t inspire the critical masses of people needed to get the work actually done. It sets up a model of leadership that requires the leaders to be people without families or free time—which whittles away the number of potential leaders and visionaries, and further distances the leadership from the base.

    Also, this: Because training people on how to lobby and what to say takes skills and should be rewarded.

    Ehhh. Lobbying has its (great) limits. If you have the people, and the votes, you aren’t restricted to relying on lobbyists. Now, that isn’t to say that lobbying doesn’t have it’s purpose—but you can’t confuse tactics with strategy. Lobbying is a tactic. A tool. Nothing more. It is not the foundation of a movement. Politicians are more than happy to take your money and/or listen to your lobbyists. That doesn’t mean they’ll vote in your favor when time is tight. Your opposition can always outspend you. Your strength is not with your lobbyists.

    *sigh* Look. It’s always a huge mistake to underestimate your enemy. But you know what’s an even bigger mistake? A fatal mistake? Underestimating your people. Your base. That’s something you can’t recover from.

73. I think our political system rather than the economic system creates this problem. IF we had comprehensive campaign finance reform (i.e., no donations period and no on behalf of advertising – which I know would take an amendment) then individual people might be able to make a statement. But politics takes money and money changes priorities.

    Unions work the same way in my opinion. Local shops probably make the most visible difference in the daily lives of workers, but the national system is required to counter the corporate lobbies.

74. I can’t believe some people are replying to this post as though Steph doesn’t get that you can’t “express whatever opinions you want on behalf of the organization” that hires you (or in another person’s words, that Steph is talking about “letting all employees do whatever they want online”). Read the post, dudes. Among other things, she was told to quit the board of an emergency abortion fund. My two questions:

    1. How would Steph’s participation on the NYAAF board be a liability for an employer in this field?
    2. Do its senior employees not serve on any boards either?

    I’m really curious to know the answers. For example, about #2: I am hard pressed to believe that would be true of any organization anywhere. But if it’s not true, and senior employees do serve on other orgs’ boards, then perhaps they feel that certain employees’ extracurricular service to the cause is more deserved or less expendable than others’. Which would be fucked up.

    Also, to Kelly: I don’t know how many different places you’ve worked at, but most of my employing organizations have decisionmaking structures and age distributions that are extremely different from what you describe. I agree with Steph about the age/seniority issue, and it’s not simply that 20somethings can’t catch a break, so don’t misunderstand that it’s a 20s vs 40s thing or something!

    There are organizations being run by people who are understandably not yet ready to retire but have been doing things the same way for 10, 15 or 20 years and have given every indication in other ways that they aren’t interested in doing it someone else’s way or in allowing the org to evolve in ways they can’t control. It’s not just about the youngest or newest or lowliest employees; by the time transition is unavoidable, Leader X’s second-in-command will have a decade or more of doing it the Leader X way, and nothing will ever change. In the meantime, a whole middle band of employees may spend years toiling without feeling like they are having a voice within the organization, forget about outside it; and the majority of the most junior employees will have turned over dozens of times, with only a few of them managing to stick it out in the field and achieve a living wage and some degree of control over their own work (pyramid structure bla bla).

    So maybe it’s not fair to say “old leadership is just worried about having nowhere to go” — to give blame where blame’s due, that phrasing may have originated with me — but certainly there is a PATTERN among organizations of leadership not seeing room for newcomers: in many ways, there isn’t. Then they make a lot of talk (in public, I might add — do they think they can just say whatever they want on behalf of the organization?!) about how young people don’t care about the movement, bla bla bla which we’ve already discussed here and elsewhere. Great.

    Yeah yeah, we get it: If You Don’t Like It, Start Your Own, etc. Valid point that many of us have taken under serious consideration. But everything I’ve described still makes for a rude awakening.

75. I would totally respond to the questions you asked if you engaged mine instead of pulling them grossly (and incorrectly) out of context. I like the part where you used them to imply that I said Steph doesn’t know how to handle herself on the internet.

    So! Fuck that.

76. @PrettyAmiable – I’m sorry, I get the sense you were responding to my post (about my questions) but can’t really tell, because it could go either way. (Since I didn’t imply you said Steph can’t handle herself on the internet, etc.) But just in case, I don’t want to be rude and accidentally ignore your reply. I didn’t realize you were expecting ME/anyone to literally answer your questions, just as I didn’t expect YOU to answer mine. Not that they’re rhetorical; just that only the orgs in question can do that. And actually, they ought to be encouraged to do so. (How can we get this to happen?)

    The movement and its professional field could certainly stand to have some kind of real discussion about this. I’d LOVE to see organizations state their policies on outside activism or publication, online or otherwise — rather than have us guess at them, get the runaround when we ask about them, wonder how to toe the line when we’re not sure quite where it is, or have this stuff pulled on us in an ad-hoc fashion in the privacy and power-imbalance of a job interview.

    I would be happy to go on record as stating all this, as an active member of my professional community and the various organizations and associations to which I contribute, so as to add my voice to the calls for change or at least for conversation. Except I can’t, exactly…because I operate under a pseudonym, because I don’t want to risk joblessness. This is one of the questions you asked, btw (“Why not blog under a pseudonym?”), that I do feel well-placed to answer. I do use a pseudonym, because I have to be afraid of (1) violently obsessive anti-abortion people and (2) overly-controlling employers. I just really think the latter shouldn’t be as much of an issue as it is.

77. I’m posting this with extra anonymity, for reasons that may become apparent:

    I work for an LGBT rights organisation: a job I’ve held now for several years. I’ve been involved in LGBT activism for twenty years. I got the job in part because I was a committed LGBT activist.

    Over the years I’ve held the job, I’ve found that more and more my freedom to be publicly activist or even to be opinionated about LGBT issues, has become more and more limited. I am allowed to say and write in public under my own name only what the organisation allows me to say, which is strictly regulated from the top down. For this reason, I adopted a pseud for writing on the Internet – which is sufficiently associated with my own name by people who know me in RL that I’m avoiding using it in this comment.

    It’s come to a point where even though I love my job and think what I do is useful, I’m so frustrated about not being allowed to express a personal opinion or to be publicly an activist for causes I care about that I’m seriously considering leaving my job because I want to go on being an LGBT rights activist, rather than an employee who furthers what a tiny group of people say I am allowed to do.

    It’s also, I think frankly, a sexist problem. There’s a man who works for the same organisation who, like me, was a long-term LGBT activist before he took the job. I said once in a staff meeting that I found it frustrating not to be able to express a personal opinion in public, and he said in surprise that of course we could continue to express our own views in public, so long as we made clear we weren’t speaking on behalf of the organisation. That was directly contradictory to what I had been told by our (male) manager; apparently there were different rules for him than for me, which my manager admitted with a shrug.

    More and more, in my experience, LGBT organisations are hiring straight employees – partly because of the lack of stigma now in working for an LGBT organisation, but partly because, I think, the straight employees don’t mind that they’re not allowed to be LGBT activists: it’s just a job to them.

    I don’t see how to change this. It seems to be a top-down structural problem – organisations are structured so that only a tiny handful of people at the top are allowed to say what they think, and the lower ranks aren’t allowed to have independent opinions of their own.

78. Firstly, apologies for my quoting mishap earlier!

    Placentasandwich – it is unbelievable that some org told her she couldn’t be on the NYAAF board. Ridiculous. And odd, since many of the NYAAF board members work for the top choice orgs in the city (so I would love to know which org said that!).

    I have worked at 5 major choice orgs, in DC, NY, and elsewhere. I will be the first to say there are problems and I spent my 20s pretty disillusioned by it all, too. I’ve certainly had many of the same conversations with my colleagues in the last ten years that I am sure Steph and others are having now. In my experience it is an oversimplification to say that the problems within the movement are simply generational. Especially at the state level, if you look around, most of the leaders of choice orgs are in their 30s or 40s.

79. Feminist Steph,

    As an older Feminist, I am sorry to hear about your dilemma.

    There are a few points which might be relevant:
    1. Most of the organizations, I am assuming, you are talking about are old. They have their ‘brand’ and their character, which is what their supporters are historically behind. While it would be smart for them to evolve, some just don’t know how, and would be hard to move, even from the inside.
    2. New media means a paradigm shift which is hard to imagine. By hard I mean involved. When we use new media, how do we want to develop our character/brand? How do we form mutually attractive and productive relationships? Even the most well funded entities pursuing these questions are not having better than satisfactory results.
    3. As we look at feminism as a whole, and reproductive rights as a basic issue, the casting of the issues – the focus – has changed from the days when feminists burned their bras.
    4. Women’s work deserves support. Women are achieving excellence in everything we do. That means, while there are women who volunteer, an accounting is due for the time and expertise people give, and a fair dollar figure attached. There should be an expectation of everyone getting supported for their work.
    5. There is no substitute for getting ones feet on the ground and actually being in the world: seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and making real stuff happen.

    These are factors I believe are important for young feminist to consider when building NEW centers for feminist activism.

    There needs to be some really deep and clear discussion about: what the issues are TODAY, why they are important, who they involve, what the effects are when rights are not there – for individuals, families, communities, governments, and the world… and other questions.

    Then the conversation has to be about: where to mount an effort, what do we know, what do we need to learn, what kind of skills can we use, what resources do we have, what do we need, where can we start today, who can we count on, what kind of people do we need, who can we ask.

    The next part is: What can we do today? What do we need to build, collect, or invent – to do what we want to do tomorrow.

    Then make the first step. DO the thing that can be done TODAY! Set a goals for tomorrow. Invent the future, one step at a time.

    To retain freshness, the processes have to be iterative, but the focus has to be on what can we DO Today.

    (Call on me. I’m an old Crone. I have plenty of skills, and I’m trainable. But, You are The Future.)

80. I appreciate the honest conversation happening here. Thanks everyone.

    If possible, I’d like to steer the conversation in a different direction. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough in my post that this isn’t about me. I used my experience to illustrate a larger point. I’m surprised by so many of you, especially those who actually know me, making absurd assertions (“why do you deserve a job” or “you don’t have the organizational experience”). You managed to insult me AND miss the point! That doesn’t get us very far.

    It’s clear to me, and from what I can tell, to the majority of the grassroots reproductive justice community, that the big girl pro-choice orgs are FAILING. Big time. What I’m hypothesizing in this post is that part of the reason this is happening is because more radical voices are being purposefully excluded, regardless of age (apologies if I focused to much on age).

    This conversation is much bigger than one blog post, but one that I think is vital if we’re actually hoping to gain any ground in abortion rights.

81. “so I left my decent reproductive health gig to live in the feminist mecca. I had high hopes – almost every major feminist and/or reproductive health organization has a presence in NYC. ”

    NYC is a “feminist mecca?” You’re funny. Sorry to inform you, but I think this was your first mistake. ;o)

    I’d like to be the first person on this thread to disabuse anyone of the notion that NYC is a “feminist mecca,” especially if you’re basing that on the fact that there are many reproductive health organizations located here.

    We also have had a 24-7-365, (relatively) affordable subway system here for over 100 years, but I hope no one thinks that NYC is a “green, pro-public-transit mecca.”

    I’m glad you did eventually find a good organization which respects all parts of your activist and organizational work. In this economy, that’s a HUGE accomplishment! Congratulations and enjoy NYC! Go to the Panorama at the Queens Museum!

82. Steph: What I’m hypothesizing in this post is that part of the reason this is happening is because more radical voices are being purposefully excluded, regardless of age (apologies if I focused to much on age).

    I wasn’t aware this was your hypothesis. It seemed as if you were stating that radical voices are purposefully excluded as a fact without any support other than you weren’t getting a job when conditions existed that made you a significant liability for any hiring organization.

    To address this, we would need to know how you define “radical” and we would need to know how exactly people at these organizations differ from the radical definition. I’m not sure how to find this kind of information.

    Personally, I think these organizations are “failing” – if by failing, you mean not preventing rather ridiculous reproductive laws from being passed at the state level – because there is public disinterest in the topic, especially in the states where these laws are passing, and because these organizations don’t have significant (or maybe not a well-known) presence in the states where they’re needed. I also think that the loudest voices in the anti-choice movement are male, which to me indicates that men have no idea how choice affects them.

83. if by failing, you mean not preventing rather ridiculous reproductive laws from being passed at the state level – because there is public disinterest in the topic, especially in the states where these laws are passing, and because these organizations don’t have significant (or maybe not a well-known) presence in the states where they’re needed.

    This. Because people who want to engage in professional activism want to migrate to “meccas” rather than get down in the muck and dirt of the hostile spaces where they are most needed. This leads to that “disinterest”, since the people who have little-to-no choice about where they live make the (oftentimes correct) assumption that the professional activists aren’t really interested in improving theri lives—-just the activists’ own resumes.

    A much greater reason for the failing–and yes, it is a failing—is the compartmentalization the abortion rights movement engages in. It doesn’t present itself as being organically part of the whole range of reproductive justice. Call me cynical, but it seems to me that the abortion rights movement has collectively told women, “we’re fighting for the right for you to have an abortion, so you can postpone child raising until that point when you’re financially “set” and you and your committed partner can work out your own individualistic solution to child care, the work-family balance, etc.” So…women who don’t see financial “set”-ness as ever being a possibility in their future, or ever being able to work out a so-called work-family balance….but yet still want to have kids…don’t really see the abortion rights movement as having anything to offer. (mind you…not that some of these women won’t have an abortion, or have an abortion after having at least one child…just that in terms of movement making—they don’t identify with or will dedicate time towards the movement.)

    And that’s a problem. It’s a problem that the abortion rights movement frames itself in the decidedly un radical way of having basic agreement with the status quo except for the right to abortion being at risk. That the abortion rights movement frames itself as preferring and advocating individualistic solutions to systemic, institutionalized anti-feminist problems.

84. Kelly: Because the people who are part of movements need to make a living. Because someone needs to organize — spend their time and energy — on the goals of the movement and those people shouldn’t be expected to do that for free.

    As radical women of color in the US have pointed out–(including Andrea Smith, Andrea Ritchie and so many others), paying 50 people to do 900 hours of work is a fundamental problem when those 50 people have to be professionalized, often aren’t connected to the community they represent in any meaningful way, and prioritize the needs of *businesses* in their work. There are little to no structures of accountability set up within the 501c3 framework and those that *are* have been done deliberately by a very few radical communities that have made the concerted effort to understand the place of 501c3s within their organizing.

    Why would I want some 20 year old that isn’t from my community, who is white, able bodied, comes from a middle class or higher background negotiating for *me* a working class/poor chicana from migrant worker background? Am I supposed to just trust that she understands my needs without every talking to me, without ever talking to my community?

    Instead of hiring 50 people to do 900 hours of labor, why can’t the goal be organizing 5 million people to do one hour of labor each? We’ve already seen the power of a million people in Egypt. We’ve seen in our own country with the Civil Rights marches. And even with the 60s feminists. Millions of people organizing together works. The professionalization of movements has done *nothing* but lose ground specifically and especially within the feminist community. This is documented.

    Feminist write repeatedly about why “nobody seems to care” about feminism–and that’s the truth, in part. My reality is that women and people around me care deeply about *gender liberation* and violence against different humans based on their gender.

    but the fact is–feminism has *agreed* to care about feminism so that *nobody else has to*. It is what their businesses (501c3s) are *doing.* That is their *job* is to take care of problems so that nobody else has to think about it. They aren’t grassroots mobilizing. They aren’t recruiting people who have never thought about feminism. They aren’t even talking to people who care deeply about gender based violence. And that is what happens when you professionalize a movement. It stops being a movement. A movement, by definition, is based on and requires grassroots community mobilization.

85. also–the professionalization of movements outside of the US has been covered repeatedly by many MANY communities of color–namely that I can think of, people in Haiti, the Zapatistas, black activists throughout all the countries of Africa—NGOs have done *nothing* for almost any community they serve–usually they make things much much worse, and more often than not, they *profit* off of the catastrophes they are supposedly there to help deal with.

    so even as again, many MANY people may be desperate for help and deeply interested in, say, anti-rape organizing in Haiti–people will NOT join, and *can not* join the multipe NGOs in the area to “deal” with the problem–they haven’t gone to school for it. All they are are rape survivors or people who are subjected to rape threats every time they walk out the door. what could they possibly know about organizing or anti-violence work?

86. As expressed by others, including bfp, I have a strong disinclination towards the over-professionalization of non-profits. The very people who should be leading them (if we can posit that non-profits exist to right societal wrongs) are categorically ineligible to work at them. You need college degrees- often multiple degrees. You need a lengthy resume of volunteerism (i.e. unpaid labor), internships (more unpaid labor) and related work experience. You need to wear certain kinds of clothes, speak in a certain register. You need to look and sound reassuringly middle class. People from marginalized communities- those experiencing the inequities and ‘wrongs’ of society- are the least qualified, by typical non-profit standards, to address their own problems in a paid position.

    I have no problem with paying people to work on social issues, even social justice issues. But we must recognize that payment opens the pandora’s box of problematic fundraising, government regulations, and the pressure to appear “professional” at all costs.

    I work at a large, ostensibly anti-racist and feminist women’s organization. I have been called “too radical” and “too militant” as well as “too gay” by management at my job. I hate it. When I meet with other radical social workers/nonprofiteers, we talk about how “out” we are at work… meaning our politics, not our sexual identity. When I come into work, I have to be deliberately vague about what I do on my off time… I can’t mention my blog, rallies, marches, protests, conferences, groups I’m a member of, even what publications I read. It has been made clear that if I continue to “go against the office culture” my job is on the line.

    And this org considers itself a social justice org.

    I don’t have any solutions to offer right now, just disillusionment!

87. La Lubu: A much greater reason for the failing–and yes, it is a failing—is the compartmentalization the abortion rights movement engages in. It doesn’t present itself as being organically part of the whole range of reproductive justice.

    EXACTLY.

    My trans/genderqueer woman take on this: The abortion rights movement is hostile to trans* folk, and not *just* trans folk with uteri. I would not for one second even consider going to PP for STD / HIV testing, for example, because being a penis-bearing woman is just too damned much for them to handle. If STD / HIV testing, prevention, and education about safer sex isn’t a part of social justice, then Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups, tell me what is? Or does that all apply only to cis white middle-class hetero women who aren’t in sex work and aren’t too radical? Because that’s what I see with Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and all the other abortion-rights groups.

    A friend of mine who worked at Planned Parenthood told me of a co-worker who was pressured out of PP because she (the co-worker) wasn’t feminine enough – that is, she (a butch cis woman; to the best of my knowledge she was white) didn’t perform white middle-class femininity adequately for PP’s standards. My friend left PP soon afterwards, because she was made to feel very uncomfortable for being a lesbian, for having a trans woman as a partner, and for daring to engage in on-the-street activism outside of her work hours.

    As long as mainstream 501(c)(3) orgs continue to center the concerns of a narrow subset of non-male people – white middle class cis het feminine TAB women – to the exclusion of the vast majority of women, not to mention all non-binary people and men with uteri – I can’t ever see having any interest in engaging with them.

    I am currently working for a 501(c)(3) org that draws its ED and caseworkers from the community that they serve [I’m sorry I can’t be more specific about the org and what it does, cuz y’no, working for a 501(c)(3)]. They attempt to use community organizing as much as possible, and I see the hoops they have to go through to “professionalize” and “instrumentalize” and “quantify” those efforts to get funding, and I wonder how long it will be before the org totally loses its way (despite the staff’s best efforts to avoid that). Just the fact that foundations demand that caseworkers have social-work degrees (I don’t know if they require them to have specifically MSWs or not) – thus totally discounting the value of the intimate knowledge of and ties to the communities they come from and serve – is problematic. How many poor POC have the resources to get a degree? And what compromises do they have to make to get that imprimatur of professionalism?

    And mind you, this is a small org serving specific marginalized communities in one city.

88. Just joined, and reading the thread, I’m thankful that the conversation took a turn for the systemic, and I co-sign what bfp, La Lubu, Havlová and others are saying (and paraphrasing others as having said) about the inherent contradiction in the professionalization of activism. Especially activism that seeks to go beyond reform, and struggles directly with the violence of the state — as all movements that take racism and gender oppression seriously must, ultimately, do.

    For a while, I was having lots of work-complaining conversations with fellow non-profit employees about how our jobs were highly exploitative and too liberal for our radical politics; how the contradiction was worse in many ways than working a job we don’t care a hoot about (and may even be able to organize within) and then doing unpaid political work on the side (the same way, as someone thankfully pointed out, that *basically every great people’s movement has done!!!***). Over time, and thanks to the theorizing of other feminists, the INCITE RevWillNotBeFunded ideas, etc., these dissatisfactions began to see their objects more clearly as systemic and historical. And now I’m craving more formal conversations about how post-non-profit radical anti-imperialist feminists (who may very well still work in non-profits) are thinking about finding their way, both in livelihood and in political groupings. More small, local collectives? Horizontal education? Mutual solidarity networks?

    I realize that this isn’t everybody’s situation, but it seems as relevant to the OP as I can manage.

    And a fitting anecdote: my mom is the chief legal advisor for Planned Parenthood of California (talk about being overworked), and yesterday on the phone was mentioning to me how at work they’re thinking of organizing a giant march to protest the way that banks and corporations are getting breaks while the budget is being balanced on the backs of women. We’re working on figuring out logistics and messaging, she said.

    Sounds cool, mom, I said, but where’s your threat? Where’s the lever, the power?

    Yeah, she said, and in my mind I could see her wry smile — we’re trying to figure that out, too.

    Like bfp said, a business or a brand will never lead a general strike, will never mobilize millions of people to stand in a square and shut down a city, not as a threat about voting but as a ***tactic of directly hitting the system’s vulnerabilities.***

    Save for the very rarest cases, a job is just a job; the real liberatory work will never be professionalized.

89. GallingGalla, amen. One of the best, longstanding de-facto-free clinics that a lot of transgender communities rely on in the Bay Area has been in grave danger of going under, in the last three months. Meanwhile, at a big Oakland protest to defend abortion rights (mainly attended by cis white folks), nothing was mentioned about the connection of those struggles (until the group I rolled with got on the bullhorn and spoke up). It was predictable, “on-message,” and disappointing.

90. La Lubu: A much greater reason for the failing–and yes, it is a failing—is the compartmentalization the abortion rights movement engages in. It doesn’t present itself as being organically part of the whole range of reproductive justice.

    I would go further actually, expanding off what you said here and earlier. The failing of feminism is that it doesn’t present itself as being part of social justice. As a kid my parents used to volunteer at every thing from shelters to employment centers. The thing I learned from that experience that has held true in my volunteering as an adult: people don’t have discrete issues.

    DV clients come in for advice perhaps a TRO, but they also would like help with housing, sometimes insurance, a divorce, a custody agreement, income support, furniture, child care, disability benefits, etc. All of these things are interconnected and *justice* requires helping them find beds for their kids as much as it requires modifying their custody order.

91. GallingGalla: I would not for one second even consider going to PP…

    Clarifying that by PP I mean Planned Parenthood.

92. I’m glad bfp and Havlova are saying what they’re saying (and this isn’t the first time I’ve been thankful for their analyses). It doesn’t make me any less frustrated that to sustain myself in an increasingly-expensive world, it’d be better to find a job I don’t give a shit about, and find a couple (unpaid) hours here and there to do my real passion. I always felt that if I was willing to do abortion advocacy work — which relatively few people apparently are, in society at large — then it was my obligation to do it!

    Separately — “Pretty Amiable,” you want to reframe the ‘failure’ as follows:
    “these organizations are “failing” – if by failing, you mean not preventing rather ridiculous reproductive laws from being passed at the state level – because there is public disinterest in the topic, especially in the states where these laws are passing, and because these organizations don’t have significant (or maybe not a well-known) presence in the states where they’re needed.”

    But at a certain point, maybe we need to acknowledge that established orgs having little presence in important locales, or generating little interest in their main action area, is itself a failure, and look for the causes of that. Like, that they won’t try strategies (or employ people, perhaps) focused on the relevance of these issues to the real lives of real people.

    Which is why LaLubu’s thing about “the professional activist wants to migrate to the feminist mecca instead of get her hands dirty” is simplistic and probably unfair. Lots of us have worked directly and constantly with women whose situations have made us so frustrated with the system that we thought, “I wish I could go to [DC, state capital, etc] to change policy so that it reflected real women’s real lives once and for all and they didn’t have to fight these same awful fights every day”. Then we get there and realize nothing of the sort is possible — not just because legislative bodies aren’t interested in real women’s real lives, but because prospective employers don’t even have a sustainable framework for making these truths the center of what they do. Instead they attempt to “include” women affected by legislation by interviewing 3 of them and quoting their words in a newsletter; they ask those of us who work with such clients to stop doing so or at least to shut up about it; and they require the most insane combinations of qualifications (as someone upthread mentioned) that no one could apply except those already well-molded by the system.

    Just for example.

93. My assessment is uncharitable, not unfair. I described the very real assessment of women in my world towards professional feminists, and not just those focused on abortion rights. We (working class & poor women, not college educated, living in the rust belt or rural areas) have already been written off as “unreachable”. And speaking of abortion rights, how many counties in the US don’t have abortion access–close to 90%, right?

    So why aren’t these enthusiastic young agitators asking us (the great unwashed in non-feminist non-meccas) “what can we do to help you get an abortion clinic in your county?” Is it for fear that the answer would be “fuck an abortion clinic, how can you help me get a job that will pay the bills? Rent that doesn’t eat away practically all my paycheck? Child care so I don’t lose my job again? Health care? Abortion is way, way down on my list of needs; why are you willing to help me with that but unwilling to work on the everyday essentials?”

94. Steph: I appreciate the honest conversation happening here. Thanks everyone.If possible, I’d like to steer the conversation in a different direction. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough in my post that this isn’t about me. I used my experience to illustrate a larger point. I’m surprised by so many of you, especially those who actually know me, making absurd assertions (“why do you deserve a job” or “you don’t have the organizational experience”). You managed to insult me AND miss the point! That doesn’t get us very far. It’s clear to me, and from what I can tell, to the majority of the grassroots reproductive justice community, that the big girl pro-choice orgs are FAILING. Big time. What I’m hypothesizing in this post is that part of the reason this is happening is because more radical voices are being purposefully excluded, regardless of age (apologies if I focused to much on age).This conversation is much bigger than one blog post, but one that I think is vital if we’re actually hoping to gain any ground in abortion rights.

    are you referring to me? I said “Steph is a unique example because she has an online/media presence but (my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong) not the organizational experience that hiring managers were probably looking for.”

    My understanding of your background is that it is clinic-based, not advocacy based for the most part – if that I wrong I most certainly apologize! I also followed up by saying you would clearly be an asset to any org and the things that have been said to you are outrageous. Just so we’re clear!

95. @La Lubu
    “So why aren’t these enthusiastic young agitators asking us (the great unwashed in non-feminist non-meccas) “what can we do to help you get an abortion clinic in your county?” Is it for fear that the answer would be “fuck an abortion clinic, how can you help me get a job that will pay the bills? Rent that doesn’t eat away practically all my paycheck? Child care so I don’t lose my job again? Health care? Abortion is way, way down on my list of needs; why are you willing to help me with that but unwilling to work on the everyday essentials?”

    I mean, these are fair questions, although they almost sound you mean them rhetorically yet I’m not sure what you think the answers are. I always felt that when faced with a choice you should do what others are less willing to do (within the bounds of what’s needed and what you’re good at), and that’s how I ended up doing abortion work in my life so far. So no, I haven’t observed that it’s not a priority and I should change fields. (Never mind that I’ve been told I’d be unemployable in other fields simply based on my associations and past work, I don’t even want to discuss that BS. But maybe organizers in those other fields will at some point address whether this is accurate and if so whether it’s acceptable.)

    I’ve worked in abortion care in urban areas long-term (though this doesn’t mean they were in the friendliest of climates) and have also collaborated with women from far-flung rural areas because they had no other place to seek care. In both types of environment, there’s certainly not a surplus of clinic staff, clinics, or access to care. I’m glad you brought this up (and, though the numbers vary with each report, the proportion of US counties without a provider hovers somewhere around 85-90% and up to 93-97% if you look at just rural counties). To the extent that you don’t hear many people demanding increased abortion access where they live, it’s kinda logical since on any given day it’s not on many people’s mind as an immediate concern RIGHT NOW TODAY whereas lack of jobs/healthcare/childcare are ongoing, as you said — but abortion access sure as hell is an emergency as soon as a problematic pregnancy arises, and by then it’s too late. (Probably one real reason for the failures as PrettyAmiable characterizes them, btw.) So, there’s a big reason that it’s not prioritized. #2 is that abortion is stigmatized and asking for more access to it in front of your fellow community members can be difficult. #3 is that sometimes “community leaders” can be imperfectly representative of the needs of all the community and inadequately voice certain people’s needs — I’m sure you’ve had your own experiences with this? Anyway, I’m pretty sure the reasons for all this are multiple. Does it mean the issue’s not an issue? Obviously not. So now what?

    It seems that on the one hand some commenters here felt the OP is asking too much — along the lines of ‘how can you expect any org to allow you to publish under your own name,’ or ‘you seem entitled,’ or ‘lots of qualified people don’t get what you’re asking for.’ And then on the other hand some commenters felt the OP is seeking too little — along the lines of ‘you’re trying to work at the wrong places anyway’ or verging on ‘your search for a job is problematic.’ Despite this divergence, it seems the two types of response agree that she’s barking up the wrong tree because the system will never change.

96. placenta sandwich: To the extent that you don’t hear many people demanding increased abortion access where they live, it’s kinda logical since on any given day it’s not on many people’s mind as an immediate concern RIGHT NOW TODAY whereas lack of jobs/healthcare/childcare are ongoing, as you said — but abortion access sure as hell is an emergency as soon as a problematic pregnancy arises, and by then it’s too late.

    Y’no, I read La Lubu as pointing out that for a hell of a lot of people, access to decent health care, child care, etc of any sort is what they need, right now, every day. And I read your response as basically “Just you wait until you need an abortion, then you’ll see how right I am, MISSY.”

    Like, how many more decades will I have to wait before I can walk into the office of a doctor I don’t know without fearing that I’ll be laughed out of the office for being a trans woman? When will I *ever* be able to get mammograms (which I don’t currently get because I *know* that I will be mocked and mistreated by staff)? When orgs that focus so narrowly on abortion rights to the exclusion of the other 99% of reproductive justice can answer me those questions, especially with answers of “we will do everything in our power to make sure that trans women can get the health care that they need?” Then maybe I’ll be a bit less skeptical.

97. placenta sandwich: It doesn’t make me any less frustrated that to sustain myself in an increasingly-expensive world, it’d be better to find a job I don’t give a shit about, and find a couple (unpaid) hours here and there to do my real passion.

    well, isn’t the point that *everybody*–not just feminists–should have the human right to a job that is emotionally fulfilling, physically sustainable, and nurtures community rather than destroying it? Shouldn’t that be a human right? Rather than an expectation that–well, I went to school, I served my time, I paid my tuition, I, unlike the loser up the street, worked hard to get a job I enjoy? Why do we buy into the belief that some people–people who are appropriately idealistic and hardworking, deserve good jobs that will sustain their idealism–

    and the rest of us can continue picking the berries and killing the chickens that they eat so they are healthy enough to do their ideallistic work?

98. THIS. To the 100th power.

    bfp: well, isn’t the point that *everybody*–not just feminists–should have the human right to a job that is emotionally fulfilling, physically sustainable, and nurtures community rather than destroying it? Shouldn’t that be a human right? Rather than an expectation that–well, I went to school, I served my time, I paid my tuition, I, unlike the loser up the street, worked hard to get a job I enjoy? Why do we buy into the belief that some people–people who are appropriately idealistic and hardworking, deserve good jobs that will sustain their idealism–

    and the rest of us can continue picking the berries and killing the chickens that they eat so they are healthy enough to do their ideallistic work?

99. Damn, bfp…That was so good I need to go smoke a cigarette.

100. Sky is blue, water is wet, establishment organizations protect their continued existence and control their message.

     You’d get the same story if you had gone to work for government. It’s got nothing to do with your age (or that of the fogeys in charge) and everything to do with the types of organizations to which you applied.

     Want to keep your outside voice? Freelance or go for smaller, less-well-established activist organizations that don’t control their employees’ messaging so tightly. Or use a pseudonym.

101. Yeah, bfp, I get what you’re saying, but I don’t get why you’re saying it to me. I’ve read your writing for a long time, always agreed with you on this, and didn’t think my words indicated otherwise. (I know you can’t know this because I didn’t bring it up, but have always cast votes for more security and welfare in jobs, etc.; have missed a day of work, as you call for, to join a non-unionized workers’ protest [yes it’s nice I could afford that, I know that]; and risked losing a previous job for assisting an attempt to organize.) Until now I thought you were saying we should all speak up about it, not “it sucks for everyone, so some people should shut up about it.”

102. @GallingGalla And I read your response as basically “Just you wait until you need an abortion, then you’ll see how right I am, MISSY.”

     Ack, this is so the opposite of what I was trying to say. I’m sorry I sounded that way, it’s really the sort of thing I would hate to hear anyone say. What I meant was that to a certain extent she’s right, abortion is NOT on many communities’ public list of action priorities; and there’s a number of understandable reasons for it — not all of which include “abortion care truly isn’t important here”. Like, those understandable reasons don’t de-exist all the women coming from those communities with really urgent needs relating to abortion care.

     It’s not like I’m just theorizing those women, I meet them and help provide their care, I know they are there! The fact that so many systemic problems are in deep need of attention sometimes DOES make me want to give up on what I’m doing, but that isn’t going to make it any better. (For the record, I think other things sometimes aren’t demanded for similar reasons, and then people are left SOL when an emergency arises, like supportive sex ed, safe and acceptable birth control options, and dignified prenatal and delivery care. And healthcare in general of course! And family leave. And and and and.)

     Anyway, It’s not like this only applies to abortion and also — let’s get back to the topic here — not like the OP’s frustration only applies to organizations that work on abortion. I’m kinda perplexed why it’s entirely shifted in this way, when the point is “holy shit, if you keep not hiring people who care about ___ [insert other topics here] enough to do outside activism, what is it you’re trying to achieve anyway?” Can we talk about that? Or is it really by nature bound up in working on abortion?

103. placenta sandwich: Until now I thought you were saying we should all speak up about it, not “it sucks for everyone, so some people should shut up about it.”

     I don’t believe I’ve said that? I said nothing about it sucks for every one. and I def. never said anybody needs to shut up. Maybe you were reading Zuzu’s comment?

     I’ve said pretty consistently throughout this entire thread–and I said specifically in my comment addressing your comment–a *movement* does not leave out anybody’s needs. It is accountable to people in communities. And so when I suggest that it is a human right that everybody a job that is affirming, sustainable, etc–I’m not speaking out of my ass, I’m saying–why *aren’t* we making it so that this is a goal? and how are 501c3s helping to create a world economy based on jobs that are individually and communally sustainable? are they helping?

     I’ve spent most of my life working shit fuck jobs. Why would I say–well, fuck it. If I have to work a shit fuck job, you do too? Because either way–whether you are or aren’t working a shit fuck job, *I am and will continue to*. But if we stop expecting 501c3s to be the sole response to the lack of fulfilling, sustainable jobs in today’s world–what can we achieve? What could happen?

     I wasn’t doing any type of ‘call out’ at all (i.e. ZOMG HOW COULD U SAY THAT????) i was addressing that specific point in the context of the overall narrative of 501c3s in the *F*eminist community.

104. i just reread my comment and realized that my comment about zuzu sounds pretty shitty–I was meaning to say–Zuzu said something more along the line of Placenta’s comment, but it came off as pretty passive aggressive towards zuzu–so whoever is moderating this thread, could you delete that comment?

105. Eh, no biggie.

106. But just to further elaborate: Not everyone is going to fit in with every work culture. It sounds like the OP isn’t the kind of activist that fits in with the culture of the organizations at which she was trying to secure employment, and that the organizations recognized that. OP seems to have taken it personally/as an indictment of the organizations/an attempt by older feminists to keep her down. When in fact what the situation seems to be is that this was simply a poor fit between candidate and employer.

     I do have to wonder if the OP did any research on these organizations prior to getting her nose out of joint about their workplace rules.

107. placenta sandwich, I hope you’re not under the impression that I think the movement is worthless or that the people doing it are trying to empty out a sinking battleship with a spoon. No, it’s just….the abortion rights movement sets itself up as a discrete entity; that it isn’t deeply connected to the other aspects of women’s lives (as a whole, if not individually).

     Unlike domestic violence shelters/programs, which present themselves as having immediate impact on every aspect of women’s lives. Yeah, part of that is the nature of the services rendered, but the different attitude has far-reaching consequences. (and I’m not convinced that there isn’t concerted effort from the same folks working to shut down abortion access to also shut down DV shelters and their message, too).

     (ps: I didn’t read zuzu’s response as snarky, but straight up. If I recall correctly, she’s got some skin in this game, left on the pavement somewhere—the first time I was asked to guest post was when zuzu had to take a break because her employment was being impacted by her blogging.)

108. @Zuzu

     You’d get the same story if you had gone to work for government.
     Well…exactly. Heh. I guess that was the disappointment. I don’t know about OP, but when I started out I really did (OK, naively) believe that organizations working toward similar goals as mine would have been happy to hear about the outside work I was already doing toward those goals.

     Want to keep your outside voice? Freelance or go for smaller, less-well-established activist organizations that don’t control their employees’ messaging so tightly. Or use a pseudonym.
     Yeah, this is what I’ve been doing (though when it comes to the job market I’m not counting on getting to be picky)…and given OP’s experience, I may continue to do these things indefinitely? But seeing that in my future still makes me a bit sad. Not just on a personal level, like look at all this experience I can’t openly share about with colleagues; but also for the future of the movement, which continues to be dominated by these orgs, who can (for example) dismiss writers’ calls for change [not about this necessarily but any kinds of change] because it’s people who “aren’t brave enough” to use their own names, or some presumed nobodies who probably don’t know their foot from their ass, etc. What a drag!

109. Oh, sorry, missed one other thing of Zuzu’s I wanted to quote:
     prior to getting her nose out of joint about their workplace rules.
     If there were “workplace rules” as opposed to arbitrarily-disclosed and inequitably-applied requirements, that might be one thing. But how are you supposed to research stuff that an organization will only tell you in the interview, just prior to turning you down? And how come it’s getting one’s nose out of joint instead of like, hey, that sucks, and I’m in the process of learning how to pursue a livelihood given these facts?

     @La Lubu and @bfp:
     the overall narrative of 501c3s in the *F*eminist community.
     I found it really interesting that bfp linked these things. One thing that constituted MY rudest awakening about movement work was realizing that not all choice orgs are even feminist, let alone progressive (and not all progressive orgs are feminist or pro-choice, etc)…I’ve worked in some places where the mission was surprisingly narrow (not to mention a few with outright abusive practices or oppressive incidents) and agree with you that orgs don’t always connect their work to everything else in life. I guess I don’t know why they’re doing it that way.* Sure, I’d do it differently, because it’s clear to me that it IS connected to so many parts of life. But La Lubu, I had read your comment as asking why am I so intent on pushing abortion issues everywhere, or something. I do know the problem of “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” but I don’t feel like that’s me.

     (*To a certain extent I wonder if it’s, again, a funding issue, like it is in public health programs funding — e.g. to almost all funding sources, HIV and repro health are separate things with separate budgets, nevermind what you know to be true on the ground, so use our $ like so or don’t use it at all…and of course most groups feel better using it than not.)

     I feel I’ve done a lot of talking lately, hope it’s not monopolizing. The professionalization of activists (including myself) by the establishment that we thought we could bust into is one of my ongoing concerns — which is one of the reasons I had asked OP to cross-post this at my blog — and this concern was shaped and informed by all three of you (zuzu, La Lubu, and especially bfp) several years back actually, so it’s nice to be hearing from you directly [yes I am mostly a lurker] now that the topic is finally coming up publicly about my field in particular.

110. What bfp said @ #96!!!!!!!!!!

111. Hm, @systemic problem, your experience reminded me of this older post about the politics of aid and development organizations, as they are called:
     http://bloodandmilk.org/2009/01/29/bill-easterly-and-the-culture-of-nice/

112. Pingback: The fringe of the pro-”choice” movement? - Jill Stanek

113. But how are you supposed to research stuff that an organization will only tell you in the interview, just prior to turning you down?

     You use this thing all the kids know about, called The Google. Seriously. And you ask people who are involved in the organization, or have worked with the organization, what the organization’s policies are. Surely if one is plugged in to the activist community as much as the OP claims to be, one would have run into someone who knew something about the way the big, establishment operations operate. And maybe one would have taken a clue from the fact that they were big and establishment operations.

     And how come it’s getting one’s nose out of joint instead of like, hey, that sucks, and I’m in the process of learning how to pursue a livelihood given these facts?

     Because she wrote a whole post about how unfair it was and how these organizations must be “scared of the power of young people.” I didn’t see a whole lot of in-the-process-of-learning reflection in the original post, just a lot of carping about how these organizations weren’t going to let her do what she wanted and didn’t recognize how valuable she was because she was young! and hip! and knew how to use Twitter! and they trembled before her might!

     Sounds to me like she didn’t do her research to find an organization that would be a good fit for her where she is and where she wanted to go, or how to discuss her outside work in an interview. I mean, did she just go into an interview with an organization that already has a communications arm and a social media presence and talk about how she did all this stuff that wasn’t on message for them and would keep doing it, and then get upset that they took a pass because they have certain goals and certain legal obligations owing to their 501(c)(3) status, and what she did wasn’t part of that?

     No, she blamed “the movement” and older feminists for being afraid of her and keeping her down. That the post finished up in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone doesn’t change that.

114. “she blamed “the movement” and older feminists for being afraid of her and keeping her down.”

     Damn young feminists, wanting to make a difference and being disappointed in those they thought shared their goals! And then SAYING SO!! How dare they!

115. @zuzu, no, what I just said is that the org WON’T tell you because it’s NOT a policy and it goes unspoken. Sure, I’ve been at some orgs where you implicitly — but never explicitly — are made to understand that the hammer would come down hard if you had any opinion on ANYthing publicly…but you’d have had a hard time hearing that info from anyone who worked there because even THAT would be something you shouldn’t discuss. Everyone wants to talk about “being realistic” here, there’s something to be realistic about! No matter what boolean operators you try, The Google won’t tell you the things OP has told us here, certainly not with names named.

     Can we talk about why even being on the board of an emergency abortion fund was apparently too much activism for the cited org?

116. Steph, I’m so glad you wrote this! I’ve been having these discouraging experiences for a few years now – being lucky enough to make it “in” to the Big-Girl Pro-Choice orgs….then be severely devastated to find out they were mostly:

     a.) unfeminist (i.e. overhearing female co-workers poo-poo active feminists)

     b.) ageist (if you’re young(er), you just don’t “get it”. Our passion and fervor are seen as naive and not welcome.

     c.) corporate (there’s a hierarchy present that incorporates – no pun intended – a and b, leaving us feeling quite UNempowered.

     There are many more of us out there who’ve experienced this, I’m sure. These “corpo-non-profits” are resting on their largeness – but if they don’t recognize what future generations have to offer, they will quickly become irrelevant.

117. Can we talk about why even being on the board of an emergency abortion fund was apparently too much activism for the cited org?

     Consistent messaging and potential conflicts. Haven’t I been saying that?

     Nonprofits have rules they must follow in order to keep their nonprofit/tax status, and they tend to be pretty conservative about them. For all I know, they can’t have employees on the boards of other organizations because of conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. Certainly, the IRS puts a lot of conditions on other types of nonprofits, such as political message operations.

     Someone who had any awareness of the way that these organizations have to operate — someone like a board member of a nonprofit — might be presumed to understand that. That the OP didn’t tells me that she’s not as ready for prime time as she thinks she is. Again, it sounds she was not a good fit for the sort of organization she was applying for, and didn’t understand how they worked.

     Damn young feminists, wanting to make a difference and being disappointed in those they thought shared their goals! And then SAYING SO!! How dare they!

     Because ageism makes everything right!

118. what I just said is that the org WON’T tell you because it’s NOT a policy and it goes unspoken.

     Placenta Sandwich, I’m going to take a minute before my general screed to all to post a nuts-and-bolts advice paragraph. There’s also networking. Networking–face-to-face, etc.–is actually a really good way to get an idea for what an organization is like, and what their unwritten rules are. If you’re an activist, chances are you have contacts who know about these places you are considering working for, and it’s usually a good idea to talk to the people you know who do this stuff. It’s a page out of the book from some of us older folks, who had to (and still have to) organize face-to-face. A lot of that actually means networking, and I don’t mean online social networking.

     And now, just in general (not to anyone specifically): You know, many of us can’t rely on working for a corporate non-profit to further our activism. Some of the blowback in this thread is due to the fact that many of us are doing this on our own time, that our actual jobs (for those of us who are able to find one) can be endangered by our activism, and we’re told to suck it up because we work for corporate America/are unemployed/etc.

     As BFP, GG and LaLubu pointed out, this professional activism doesn’t mean jack shit if you leave out entire swaths of women. Poor women, women of color, trans women and other women who are marginalized in many ways. Those women are every age.

     I’ll say this (as someone who’s been politically active in a non-professional capacity for damn near twenty years now), most of the women LaLubu is talking about, BFP is talking about, GG is talking about–they don’t even seem to exist to many of these large orgs OR these young activists. I used to wonder why women of color and poor women and trans women and others got so pissed at feminists when I was just starting out. Then you see it. Or rather, you don’t see it. The young activists who are listened to, who get the platforms, who are hired into these organizations, tend to be white, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds, and the issues they fight for–while important (both objectively and to me personally), are highlighted at the expense of the less glamorous, less popular issues. I don’t see Twitter campaigns or FB campaigns or marches for childcare or homelessness or worker’s rights or immigration (and the violence–including sexual violence–visited upon immigrants by the state). The women–the activists–who are most visible tend to look like me, present cis like me, and have similar backgrounds to me. And there’s nothing wrong with me, or women like me, engaging in a movement of women’s liberation. But when other women’s voices, other women’s priorities, are crowded out, are marginalized (much like they are in the larger culture), when maybe the most you can hope for is one or two “other” women’s faces at a speakers panel or a nod to an issue with the odd article or press release, but to never see your issues made the movement’s priority, well. . .it sends a message.

     I mean, look–imagine just how shitty it is for say, the single mother in Wal-Mart to try and organize her coworkers and unionize. Or the Latina farm worker. Or the unemployed mother who is trying to let the welfare office know that no, actually, her benefits were terminated in error. Or the trans woman who, if she comes out in her activism, not only risks unemployment but assault and murder. They’d love rewarding jobs, they’d love to speak their minds without fear of retribution. Many do speak their minds, often at their own peril, and it’s not as if they have a feminist movement that backs them. Oh, these issues get mentioned in passing. . .but they aren’t prioritized.

     Also–I’ll point out that we’ve all got skin in this game, as LaLubu phrased it. Zuzu did have some career blowback thanks to her blogging, as I recall. BFP, LaLubu, GG, and a bunch of other women might not do this professionally but they dedicate a LOT of time and energy to movement building, organizing, and getting shit done. While doing sometimes shitty jobs, or sporadic jobs, or okay jobs with nice coworkers but not the most incredibly awarding and self actualizing jobs ever–jobs that are not remotely connected to our activism. This can and does affect people’s jobs (and general well-being) with the added complication that they aren’t even getting paid for their activism. Oddly enough, that doesn’t seem to count. That’s not just pooh-poohed, it’s fucking ignored.

119. @zuzu
     For all I know, they can’t have employees on the boards of other organizations because of conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest.
     This is factually untrue and you’ll find that most of the senior staff at most of these orgs do “get” to be on boards of other orgs — including boards of other biggish corporatish prochoice orgs. So to me it still reads like a non-explicit “some people’s activism is more valuable/acceptable than others’ and we’ll be the judges of that”. Sure they can choose to do that but it’s the very opposite of inclusive or radical or everyone-has-a-voice or helping-1million-people-do-1-hour-of-activism and I guess I just haven’t yet stopped feeling disillusioned (despite OP’s story being one of many many) that “even” the self-styled liberal progressive nonprofits can be just like a corporation. I know to YOU it’s old news (and Sheelzebub & bfp I agree it’s the same stupid shit at all kinds of jobs and that that’s wrong), but take a look at half the responses here that are simply defending the status quo without questioning the entire 501c3 system or invoking the nonprofit industrial complex.

     @Sheelzebub
     Some of the blowback in this thread is due to the fact that many of us are doing this on our own time, that our actual jobs (for those of us who are able to find one) can be endangered by our activism, and we’re told to suck it up because we work for corporate America/are unemployed/etc.
     Yeah I know! And that sucks! And people who work at 501c3s also see their jobs endangered by their activism! And that sucks! I don’t see why it should create “blowback” that we all think these things suck. I’ve had private conversations about this with OP/author (and others), and blogged about it before, and to me it was always a big old thing about “so this is how 501c3s are actually not all that different from corporations and we need to be aware they may impede radical change and/or alter the way we do things despite ourselves”…so that’s where I was coming from, idunno.

120. (@Sheelzebub, also, I do know about networking, I mean I’m not still in high school [not to insult high schoolers – I just wasn’t that good at networking back then] and what I was trying to say is that you can’t always get the info on sensitive things from people who are still employed in the field, even if they’ve moved on to another org! In fact I’m more willing to dish on a specific employer pseudonymously and to people who don’t know me in person [but even then just barely] because of my good reasons to be paranoid, and like I said before, I don’t think that helps AT ALL in giving orgs a reason to be accountable in what they do. Yes obviously this is a silly field to keep trying to work in if I have to be looking over my shoulder — but then again, so is nearly every other paying job, as we are saying, right?)

121. Two points from a lawyer who has advised 501(c)(3)s since this aspect seems to be dragging on:

     1) Employees sitting on boards of other institutions requires substantial vetting under conflicts and messanging controls
     2) Public, attributable statements are often against org policy because IF those statements are attributed to the org and those statements are deemed to be campaigning the org will have to close up shop. There is no bright line rule that people are willing to stake the entire organization on.

     I have personally advised orgs to implement these rules. If an org doesn’t have them they are taking a substantial risk that isn’t prudent given their fiduciary obligations. I know legal bullshit is annoying but sometimes it really is there to protect what the organization is trying to accomplish.

122. Sheelzebub: BFP, LaLubu, GG and a bunch of other women might not do this professionally but they dedicate a LOT of time and energy to movement building, organizing, and getting shit done.

     BFP, La Lubu? Yes, absolutely! Me? No. I carp on the ‘nets. Please don’t inflate my contribution.

123. I am an OB/GYN physician in Washington DC. I have experience in medicine, reporoductive health, public health, and policy. I want to leave the practice of medicine and focus my career on advocacy for reproductive health. I have both a political AND medical voice for the feminist movement….AND I CANT FIND A JOB. I am either over or under qualified, or quite simply, no one is interested. It is frustrating to throw yourself at a movement (as a qualified professional!) and be rejected.

124. Kristen J., thanks for that info. It’s really helpful to know the specific details of what the organizational “costs” are. That said, I still wonder how so many non-sub staff manage to be on other orgs’ boards without their employers going bankrupt on all the outlay of legal fees, if it’s really such a barrier!

125. placenta sandwich: That said, I still wonder how so many non-sub staff manage to be on other orgs’ boards without their employers going bankrupt on all the outlay of legal fees, if it’s really such a barrier!

     Some orgs allow *existing* employees or key employees to join the boards of other orgs in order reduce turn over even though there are potential problems. But if you come in asking for an exception you may find it more difficult to find a org willing to deal with the additional difficulties given there are similar candidates without those issues.

     For more on why this is a problem you might look into the fiduciary obligations of trustees of an organization (something you should examine before joining given that you are exposing yourself to serious legal liability).

126. Kristen, does that also apply to non-board activities i.e. regular old volunteering? Because that has also been on employers’ lists of things that supposedly must be quit, but it doesn’t seem to carry nearly the same responsibilities or liabilities that you allude to in a board position. Is this overzealousness or is there some other principle at work or what?

127. What Kristen J said.

     Also, given that ACORN has been killed and Planned Parenthood and NPR are both fighting to keep their federal funding because right-wing assholes made misleading, highly edited tapes that got play on Fox and got the Republicans in Congress all worked up — and all because of some what some low-level employee (ACORN and PP) or someone who had nothing to do with the funding (NPR) said on tape — can you see why it’s a big deal that 501(c)(3)s want to keep control of the messaging?

     I mean, it’s great for you if you get to say whatever you want, but it’s not so great for the constituents and beneficiaries of your organization lose their jobs or their health care or won’t be registered to vote because your outside statements were attributed to the organization. With the O’Keefe tapes, the truth was eventually shown to be very different than what appeared on the tapes, but by then the damage was done.

128. It depends on the non-board activities. The key issue is (typically) whether in volunteering is considered campaigning attributable to the org, but there can also be strings attached to donations or grants, limitations in the charter or limits imposed by the board to prevent the misuse of org assets. I know of at least one org that had to tell the IRS that certain employee volunteer activities were outside their official policy when the IRS noted that org personnel were using internal assets (like phones, copy machines, etc) to support a charity event that the employees didn’t realize was being sponsored by a political candidate. That policy protected the orgs from losing their status.

129. La Lubu:
     I’m inclined to think this has little to nothing to do with your age, and everything to do with your activist background (and present!). Established institutions, including the ones dedicated or ostensibly dedicated to social justice and human rights, trend towards presenting a centrist face in order to maximize donations and minimize controversy.

     It’s a strategy that can backfire (see: the Democratic Party’s move to the right ever since Reagan’s election; the concurrent mainstream feminist movement divorcing itself from the primacy of working-class women’s issues since the defeat of the ERA).

     Had you been able to present yourself as a fresh young face without that pesky baggage of not-centrist-enough politics and/or practices, you may have met with more success (translation: activist older women aren’t catching any breaks, either).

     Probably they are getting worse, a pretty (like in young) face will make the movement look more modern.

     But this minor detail aside could not agree more with you. It’s painful.
     Organizations don’t like people that talk. That’s the reason they have spoke persons. But I we should be different and diverse.

     Painful, By the way thanks for sharing. That prove that we need more radical thinking of the kind that search to put and end to all this hierarchies .

130. @zuzu

     and all because of some what some low-level employee (ACORN and PP)

     Well, yeah…exactly. PP’s got plenty of “messaging control” and not-just-anybody can say whatever they want on the internet while employed by them, etc etc, and this still happened. Because of stuff people said (or were falsely made to seem like they were saying!) while on the job, as part of their job, which has literally nothing to do with their personal opinions or outside activism or any of that! And the orgs still got burned big-time. I mean, you’re right, maybe other orgs see this and are worried and think that putting a tight lock on *everything* will somehow keep the next disaster from happening…but I notice that none of the disasters so far have come from what employees do on their own time.

     Here’s a thing I will say (while naming names!) about how big nonprofits’ very nature has the potential to work against the people they intend to serve — which many here know all about, but to me this is a pretty literal example from the abortion context. So, about 10 women in 10 years have died of bacterial Clostridium infections after doing a medication abortion. Anti-abortion people latched onto this as proof that abortion is wildly dangerous (nevermind that 10 fatalities out of the ~million medication abortions performed in 10 years is actually an amazingly good case-fatality rate, equally safe as surgical aspiration abortion, if not even safer). In response, PP started requiring that all medication abortion patients be given a course of preventive antibiotics at the time of their abortion. But we don’t even know if that does any good at all — and it may do harm, if it leads to antibiotic resistance or if it kills off the “good” vaginal bacteria leaving hardier Clostridium bacteria to overpopulate. This is only just beginning to be studied. But because PP provides so many of the country’s medication abortions and is such a huge target, they had to take defensive steps that may or may not be necessary or medically preferable. I don’t even know what would be best here, from a public-health strategic perspective. But I’d be worried about speaking up under my own name/professional title even about a mostly-technical aspect like this, because there’s such a culture of “shut up we will deal with everything internally” because we’re always afraid of anti-abortion people fucking up our shit. I get all this, it’s just kinda tiring and terrifying.

131. PS
     When I said “we don’t even know if that does any good at all” I meant we as in the clinical/research community, not “we” as in I work with PP. I affirm I am not employed or retained by Planned Parenthood and my views do not reflect those of any organization anywhere, etc etc.

132. Zuzu: Also, given that ACORN has been killed and Planned Parenthood and NPR are both fighting to keep their federal funding because right-wing assholes made misleading, highly edited tapes that got play on Fox and got the Republicans in Congress all worked up — and all because of some what some low-level employee (ACORN and PP) or someone who had nothing to do with the funding (NPR) said on tape — can you see why it’s a big deal that 501(c)(3)s want to keep control of the messaging?

     As Placenta Sandwich says – I think that’s an excuse, more than a reason. Where I work hasn’t had anything like these issues with right-wing groups mounting sting operations, yet the same top-down, you-lose-your-voice approach is very much enforced – and has been well before the Acorn thing in the US.

     In a sense, this is part of the wider problem of a work environment where getting a personal satisfaction out of the work you do is simply not regarded as important. In a very real way, these organisations are better off hiring people without any personal involvement in the work they do – who get job satisfaction out of doing their job well nine to five, and then going home. Hiring someone who is passionate about the wider goal, will mean they do their work with extra zeal and joy – but it will also mean they don’t want to be silenced outside their work and give up all of the activities that they do passionate unpaid work for.

     It makes for a very pure irony: the people who are most supportive of an organisation’s work and care most about it, are those who are least likely to be happy working there.

133. Placenta sandwich, networking isn’t dishing. It’s not unprofessional or gossipy to ask someone if your unpaid activism is going to be a problem with people in an organization–and it’s completely fine for people to share “Look, I know you love their mission, but my friend X who worked there said they do tend to be strict about messaging and a bit paranoid about the freelance activism of their employees, so you may have to give up X, Y, and Z if you work there.”

     I don’t see why it should create “blowback” that we all think these things suck.

     Because people who are relatively privileged are completely erasing the work those who aren’t as privileged are doing. Work they are doing for free. And work that may not only just lose them a job, but put them in physical or legal danger.

     Because many women have been radical and outspoken and been imperiled by it and it’s never a problem until a relatively privileged woman is told by an organization that now she has to consider the well-being of the organization when she tweets or writes articles.

     Pointing out that these organizations have always been structured in a corporate manner, and that a professionalized activist model is problematic for many of the communities who are marginalized would class us as old, scared, timid, and burned-out apparently.

134. Pointing out that these organizations have always been structured in a corporate manner, and that a professionalized activist model is problematic for many of the communities who are marginalized would class us as old, scared, timid, and burned-out apparently.

     I wouldn’t have called you any of those things and don’t think that has come up. I guess the “generational” hypothesis has been a theme, yes, but I didn’t even see the other ones mentioned. Yes it’s problematic, we agree, what?

Comments are currently closed.