paid sick days provide essential resource to survivors

Here’s a post I wrote for the Family Violence Prevention Center of Orange County. The original source is located here.

Workers’ rights activists across the country have been building support for mandated paid sick days for the past several years at federal, state and local levels. Requiring businesses to provide paid sick leave for employees, typically around seven days per year for full-time workers, makes sense for employees, businesses and the general public.

Paid sick leave is a public health issue – the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), which has done much of the most-cited research on paid sick days, found that employees who came to work while infected with H1N1 in 2009 infected over 7 million patrons, customers and coworkers. Paid sick days would enable these workers to stay home when they fall ill (or when they are needed to take care of sick family members), preventing the spread of disease.

Lower-wage workers are less likely to be provided paid sick days by their employers, even though they experience more obstacles than higher-salaried workers in finding childcare or taking off work and losing valuable wages that may force them to choose between medicine or groceries for the pay period.

Often missing from the discussion about paid sick days is its important value for individuals involved in abusive relationships or who are survivors of sexual assault. Violence prevention advocates often refer to paid leave as “paid safe days.” They can be used by survivors of abuse to seek medical treatment, counseling and shelter without losing pay or fearing retaliation from employers for missing work.

Allotting paid safe days to employees, especially knowing that abusers are often repeatedly physically, emotionally and sexually violent within their intimate relationships, seems like an undeniable resource survivors deserve. But Mike Rosen, a radio personality in Denver, where a referendum on paid sick leave will likely appear on the November ballot, dismissed the importance of paid safe days in a Denver Post editorial. He charged that because more women than men will be forced to take advantage of them, the policy isn’t worth employers’ support: “This is essentially about…female constituents. The paid ‘safe’ days are related to domestic violence issues. Men won’t be taking many of these.”

Although it’s true that men’s violence against women would comprise most need for paid safe days because of its frequency in comparison to violence perpetrated by women, Rosen flippantly misses the mark. We need to provide victims of intimate partner abuse, most of them women, any resources possible to empower them to seek help and simultaneously preserve their incomes, not selfishly dismiss their struggles because they are more frequently victimized than men.

Thankfully, paid leave coalition builders have achieved considerable success despite some detractors, having passed mandated sick days legislation in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and even most recently in the state of Connecticut. They are now targeting the cities of Denver, Philadelphia, Seattle and New York.

Advocates from the NC Justice Center attempted to pass mandated sick days in North Carolina in 2009, but the proposed law was defeated. However, an overwhelming 69% of voters nationwide supported paid sick leave laws in an IWPR study, and coalitions across the country continue to build steam and gain legislative victories. Hopefully the tides continue to turn toward policy that would protect survivors in our state, where more than 66,000 citizens received domestic violence support services in 2009 and 2010.


foursquare may have safety risks for users

I’m going to start cross-posting things I write for other blogs so I can keep track! Here’s a post I wrote for the Family Violence Prevention Center of Orange County. The original source is located here.

Foursquare, a location-based social networking website for mobile phones that allows users to “check in” at locations of interest and compete with others for both virtual and real-life rewards, has grown in popularity to over 10 million users since its launch in 2009 (including, recently, President Obama). The program uses GPS to establish check-ins, which are then sent to users’ friends within the foursquare network and linked to Twitter and Facebook if they choose.

A recent Wall Street Journal study found that 60% of foursquare check-ins in a given week are made by men, as compared to 38% by women. Tech experts often explain tech differences like this in terms of men’s greater likelihood of becoming early adopters of social media, but foursquare’s statistics may be related to another concern for women users: safety.

I don’t use foursquare because of concerns about the safety of sharing my real-time location over the internet. But choosing not to use foursquare hasn’t completely protected me from location sharing because it has become a feature on other social media platforms as well. I realized recently I’d been accidentally broadcasting my location to all of my Twitter followers with every tweet because I had unknowingly clicked a button below the text box on my Android phone. My Twitter account is public, so I was shaken to realize how much information readers had been receiving.

Leo Hickman, a journalist for The Guardian, wrote an article last year about how he was able to stalk a random woman at a sporting event based on her foursquare posts. He raised concerns about privacy issues related to foursquare. “Sure, you might earn yourself a “free” decaf latte when you check in five times at a coffee shop, but at what price to your privacy?” Hickman wrote. In 2010, a San Francisco programmer was able to capture 875,000 supposedly private check-ins through a security loophole that was later fixed.

Location-based social media have exciting prospects, but some have noted that women in particular may not feel as free to use them for fear of unwanted surveillance. Especially for those involved in abusive relationships or for victims of stalkers, foursquare and programs like it could be used as weapons. And in a culture that frequently blames sexual assault victims because of their outfits or their level of intoxication, it doesn’t seem far-fetched that victims could also be blamed for “putting themselves out there” and inviting victimization by allowing others to view their locations on social media platforms.

Many tech experts say GPS-based apps will become even more ubiquitous in the future, and other social media platforms have already begun to adopt location-based elements. My experience with the GPS feature on Twitter caused me to scrutinize my privacy settings for my other social media accounts, but I still don’t feel confident I completely understand my chosen settings. I feel concerned that sites like Facebook may have made privacy deliberately complicated, causing users to choose more relaxed settings that allow advertisers to mine their data more easily.

How will developers be able to ensure safety as they continue to curate this technology? In a male-dominated field like computer science, how can we work to ensure an individual’s unique privacy concerns are taken into consideration throughout the development of new products? Leave a comment below to weigh in!


internship blog post: social security & young voters

This week I attended an awesome panel discussion on Social Security’s significance to young people. I referenced this event in my last post, but also wrote a more detailed summary for IWPR’s Social Security Media Watch Project blog. The text of my new post is pasted below. You can check out the original source here.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: YOUNG VOTERS SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT FEAR FOR ITS PRESERVATION

As an undergraduate student readying myself to enter the workforce in a struggling economy, I was interested in the panel discussion, “Engaging Younger Voters on Social Security,” hosted by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on Wednesday, July 20. With Social Security possibly on the table as a target for budget cuts, I wondered if I would be protected by the program in retirement, more than 45 years from now.

Panelists described how to best explain the importance of retirement security programs to young people and explored polling results regarding young peoples’ feelings about the Social Security program.

Showing Young Voters a Future for the Program

EPI Research Assistant Kathryn Edwards, who co-authored “A Young Person’s Guide to Social Security,” spoke to the struggles young people face in understanding the current nature and the future Social Security. Younger generations sometimes see the program as something they won’t need—or that simply won’t be available by the time they reach retirement age.

Edwards has seen success in framing Social Security as a type of insurance. Just like car owners and homeowners buy insurance, Social Security offers protection in the event someone is unable to work, and the investment remains as workers shift between jobs. Social Security also serves as risk insurance for individuals unable to work due to disabilities and for the children of deceased parents. “Because you are an actor in this economy, you are at risk,” said Edwards. “The answer to risk is to protect yourself against it.”

Edwards also addressed the widespread myth that Social Security is “running out.” Social Security currently costs around four percent of GDP and will rise to a little less than six percent by 2035. This increase in cost is not a crippling adjustment, and similar increases have been absorbed by the economy in the past. Defense spending increased by 1.5 percent from 2001–2007, a much shorter period of time, and the economy was able to support it.

“This isn’t a problem with the program, it’s a problem with the politics,” said Edwards. She said the framing of Social Security as a problem is a political strategy rather than an economic reality.

Younger Generations Don’t Need Convincing on the Importance of Social Security

There was also some myth busting on young people’s understanding of Social Security. An accurate portrayal of my generation’s feelings about the program: we care. Most young people understand the importance of government retirement insurance, but fear for its preservation.

Celinda Lake, a political strategist, advisor, and pollster, presented the results of her study of around 5,000 voters’ attitudes toward the Social Security program. Nation- and state-wide phone surveys were conducted in May 2010 and March 2011. Focus groups and dial tests were held in March and April 2010.

While many advocates believe young people have little interest in retirement insurance, Lake’s research showed that younger voters have surprisingly strong, positive feelings about Social Security. In fact, the younger the voter, the more likely she or he is to oppose raising the retirement age.

Support for Lifting the Cap on Payroll Tax Strong Among Young Voters

Voters under 30 also strongly supported eliminating the cap on payroll tax  that exempts Americans making more than $106,800 (just six percent of the population) from paying Social Security taxes on wages above that threshold. Seventy-two percent of younger voters surveyed said they would support a candidate who supported lifting the cap.

Younger voters see Social Security as a promise, a government covenant made to all generations to provide a basic and reliable retirement. Before Social Security was passed in 1934, many lower income Americans had to either work until they died or live their final years in poverty. Social Security instilled in Americans a basic belief in older individuals’ right to a modest guaranteed income after lifelong employment.

Lake speculated that stability is an important value to young voters because of difficult experiences navigating the job market during and after the recession. She was confident policymakers could sell younger voters on the importance of Social Security because her survey findings showed they already strongly value the program. “We’re not convincing young people,” she said. “We’re tapping into existing attitudes. We’re mobilizing them.”

Cuts made to Social Security now will not directly affect Americans who already receive benefits or those who will receive benefits in the next few decades – they’ll affect the younger generations. Edwards summed up the program’s relevance to younger voters: “If you’re a young person, Social Security is yours to lose.”

Leah Josephson is the Communications Intern with the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.


messaging: i’m obsessed.

Went to a really interesting event this morning at the Economic Policy Institute on “Engaging Younger Voters on Social Security.” I learned so much about the Social Security program, what it stands for and how it works. I’m pretty much an expert now; watch for a new post on IWPR’s Social Security Media Watch Project blog summarizing the event and what it meant to me. In the meantime, check out “A Young Person’s Guide to Social Security,” co-written by one of the panelists, Kathryn Edwards, who was an extremely impressive economic policy researcher (and probably like three years older than me, sigh). Her guide, and her effective way of framing Social Security as relevant to young people, was totally inspiring. Seriously, check it out.

But this post isn’t about Social Security itself. It’s about how fascinated I was by one of the other panelists’ presentations. Celinda Lake is a hugely established Democratic strategist, advisor and pollster who recently conducted a study on younger voters’ feelings about Social Security with her group Lake Research Partners.

While most advocates believe younger voters have little investment or interest in Social Security, Lake’s survey surprisingly found that voters under 30 are almost as likely as retirees to value Social Security. She speculated that this result is related to the youngest working generation’s difficulty in finding work in a struggling economy throughout their early careers. They realize the necessity of a safety net, a retirement insurance program that helps them rest assured they’ll be able to maintain a stable lifestyle as they age.

The most interesting part of Lake’s survey to me were her results on which messages in favor of strengthening Social Security were most effective for younger voters. Some of her findings:

  • Younger voters responded well to the framing of Social Security as a “promise” made to all generations to provide a basic and reliable retirement
  • Younger voters overwhelmingly sided with a candidate who would close the Social Security payroll tax loophole (it exempts those making over $106,800 from paying Social Security taxes on their income above that threshold) over a candidate who wants to raise the retirement age to 69 and make other cuts to Social Security
  • A whopping 73% of voters surveyed found the following statement to represent their views extremely well: “Social Security money belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to the program, not to the government. We must protect Social Security from cuts that will hurt beneficiaries, we cannot let Congress try to use Social Security as a piggy bank.”
  • Other successful messaging themes: Congress should have other priorities, like regulating Wall Street; Congress should try revenue increases rather than entitlement cuts; cutting Social Security is a broken promise; the government should prioritize paying back the$2.6 trillion it took from the Social Security trust fund, just like it prioritized bailing out Wall Street

This survey was interesting to me mostly because I kept thinking about my experiences volunteering with Planned Parenthood in grassroots activism efforts like phone banking and canvassing. At all of these events I’ve been handed a list of “talking points” instructing me how to frame my viewpoint most effectively to voters. I always knew these talking points were researched by some outside consulting group that probably conducted focus groups and phone surveys, but the event this morning was my first detailed view of this type of research.

Planned Parenthood has been very effective in framing its recent right-wing attacks as attacks on family planning services, necessary for everyone, as opposed to a dialogue about the morality of abortion. Polls have shown that Americans understand Planned Parenthood’s services are primarily focused on unplanned pregnancy prevention and education, and they reject efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Reading about this successful messaging is why I wasn’t too surprised to see that Planned Parenthood’s most recent campaign is in favor of eliminating co-pays for birth control (sign the petition!) under the new health reform guidelines. What a great strategy – Planned Parenthood realized the dialogue about its services had turned in its favor, and decided it was the right time to go for it with another push in favor of protecting reproductive health.

Love it! This type of messaging/strategic communications research is really interesting to me. I’m known to be a person who loves to talk about feminism to, say, my random beer pong partner on a Friday night in a way that’s simple and identifiable. As a peer educator, I love experimenting with how to best help participants understand the culture of violence and get inspired to take action to help change it. I’m hoping to do a little investigating as to how I could possibly translate those small-scale interactions to my career.

Again, every day I’m amazed at how much I’m learning about myself and my future in this city.


new faces, more voices sessions 4 & 5 (career development advice)

Just wanted to share some of the information I gleaned from last week’s New Faces, More Voices session, which was a salary negotiation and resume workshop with Pamela O’Leary, executive director of the Public Leadership Education Network, successful D.C. career coach Alyssa Best and members of the executive committee of the Women’s Information Network (of which I’ve recently become a proud member!).

Some of Pam’s resume advice:

  • Put your educational background at the bottom of your resume, not the top! Your work experience (paid and unpaid) is most important, especially when applying in DC.
  • Don’t put references on your resume
  • Send all attachments as PDFs
  • Use months for time periods, not semesters – you’re not a student any more!
  • Make your resume about accomplishments and skills, not responsibilities. Quantify your accomplishments as much as possible.
  • Use a local mailing address, even if you have to “borrow” one from someone else. Your resume might be thrown out if you don’t seem easily accessible to potential employers. For legislative positions, use a DC mailing address but mention your constituency in the state of office you’re applying to in your cover letter.
  • Resumes and cover letters should be only one page for a young professional! One resume page to every seven years of experience. (After the workshop, I resolved to work on shortening mine significantly!)
  • In cover letters: SHOW, don’t TELL. Instead of, “I’m highly organized,” mention that you coordinated 200 volunteers, email correspondence for a membership list of 10,000, etc.

This week, NFMV coordinator Ashley of the National Council for Women’s Organizations, suggested that we ask DC professionals for informational interviews (a.k.a. “meet me for coffee!”) while we’re here in the city and have the special status of interns. These short 15-20-minute meetings give interns the opportunity to ask questions that aren’t appropriate for job interviews – questions about entry-level salaries and personal information about folks’ career paths. Ashley said it was acceptable to send cold emails to people asking for these kinds of meetings. We’ll see if I can identify some people with interesting jobs within the feminist community and convince them to meet up with me before I head back to Chapel Hill! Let me know if you happen to know anyone who might be a good resource!

Soon I’ll be writing a post about salary negotiation, the gender wage gap and pay secrecy, which was addressed at last week’s session but really deserves its own discussion! I’ve continued to develop a lot of opinions on equal pay (and pay secrecy in particular) since I’ve been in DC at IWPR, time that also coincides with the Wal-Mart v. Dukes Supreme Court decision. But props to Sheila, former assistant director at NC Hillel back home, for originally sparking my interest in this topic!


walmart v. dukes rally @ supreme court

Just wanted to share a few photos I took from the rally last week at the Supreme Court in support of the women employees of Wal-Mart who experienced systematic discrimination at the workplace. They suffered both pay inequalities and lack of opportunity for promotion as compared to their male counterparts.

Unfair pay has serious consequences for women throughout their lifetimes, and I’m pleased to be learning a lot about these and other economic justice issues at IWPR. Not only do women make 77 cents on a man’s dollar on average in the U.S., causing them more economic hardship in the short term, fewer wages mean less Social Security funding upon retirement. Thus, more older women are poor than older men.

The women in the Dukes case attempted a class-action suit to hold Wal-Mart accountable for its illegal management decisions but were denied class-action status by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote.

The rally was empowering and achieved a lot of visibility. Plenty of press attended to cover the event, and plenty of passersby were supportive. It’s so amazing to be able to leave my internship for just an hour during the day to participate in an event like this. So much activism is constantly happening here in DC, and it’s usually only minutes away.

I’ve also enjoyed running into some of the same people at multiple events I’ve attended. I haven’t been in this city for very long, but I’m already starting to identify the community that I’ll become a part of someday if my life leads me here.

Two fellow IWPR interns and I were featured in an Associated Press photo taken at the event – see if you can spot me in AOL’s collection of AP photos of proud angry feminists here 😉

Also, here’s a video some awesome fellow New Faces, More Voices interns edited from their footage of the protest.

I'm in this one, looking kinda awkward. Leah and candid don't go too well together (but there's no room for vanity in activism!) Photo courtesy of Carley Shinault

Rally participants (most from feminist orgs around DC, but some from labor unions) and their signs. IWPR interns are toward the far right on the front row.

Close-up of IWPR interns at the rally June 21.


new faces, more voices session 3

The most recent session of New Faces, More Voices focused on organizing for international women’s issues. As always, the two speakers were inspirational.

I’m sometimes concerned that what often feels like an exclusive focus on the struggles of women in developing nations draws attention away from domestic problems in our own backyards. For example, at his UNC speaking engagement this year, Nicholas Kristof dismissively said the “only problems” U.S. women have to worry about is sexual harassment at work, not seeming to think that feeling sexually threatened was much of a problem at all.

But the speakers at NFMV drew an interesting parallel between their work on the international stage and at home attempting to ratify the CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women) treaty. The United States is one of only seven countries that has not yet ratified the treaty (others include Sudan, Somalia and Iran). The speakers explained how the treaty would positively affect women in all socioeconomic conditions.

Barbara Ferris is a feminist activist who helped start the International Women’s Democracy Center, which teaches women how to run political campaigns and originally targeted women in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Her organization assists with campaign management and coordinates a community leaders forum. It also has established a pipeline project for U.S. women ages 18-35 to encourage and train them to run for office. This project has recently expanded its focus to include outreach to LGBTQ-identified individuals. Ferris talked about the struggles feminist organizations face in finding funds from donors. “If you really want a ton of money, do babies, trees and animals,” she said.

The second speaker was Erica Swanson, field director at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. She shared her career history – having started out in social work, she became more and more concerned with the systemic challenges that made her job so difficult. She transitioned to political campaign work after being encouraged to do so.

Swanson is young, soft-spoken and kind. She assured all of us that a happy, secure life in this city was a dream within reach. She is pregnant and married to a man she met in undergraduate school.  Swanson encouraged us to translate our idealism into our life’s work.  “Let that inspiration help make life decisions for you,” she said.

This discussion session was interesting for me, especially because I related to Swanson and was very interested in her career path. But it was also difficult; I’m already getting disillusioned with the partisan political process here.

It’s devastating to me that a woman as passionate and committed as Ferris can work for 40 years toward a goal and see so little progress. I’m incredulous that the U.S. still hasn’t signed a treaty ensuring equal rights for women after all this time.

Working toward progress, and thinking of politics in terms of real people’s lives rather than as a game, can be demoralizing.

I’ve often felt that kind of frustration and helplessness on a smaller scale through my activism on campus, and I think sometimes it IS necessary to allow a few minutes to feel sorry for yourself. Fixating on those feelings probably isn’t healthy, but I think recognizing injustices and feeling them to your core – and sometimes feeling genuinely sad – is necessary to maintain your passion.


welcome to DC, rep. kathy hochul!

Unfortunately blurry photo of me, a fellow IWPR intern and new Rep. Kathy Hochul! (camera was malfunctioning, oh well)

I was lucky enough to attend a reception at the PPFA office Monday night welcoming New York Rep. Kathy Hochul to Washington, D.C. as another strong pro-choice voice in the House! Not only were there heavy hors d’oeuvres and free booze, I got to meet Rep. Hochul, who was a smart, funny woman with a strong political background.

She spoke to the crowd, which was comprised of advocates from progressive and women’s interest groups who all contributed to her campaign effort. For the first time ever, Planned Parenthood “embedded” one of its field organizers into a political campaign, ensuring that a reproductive rights expert was advising Hochul on strategy. Hochul said she knew the huge, supportive network of women’s organizations that threw its support behind her was a key factor leading to her important victory, and that she wouldn’t forget that support. “I was getting checks from states I’d never been to before!” she said.

Another grainy photo of Rep. Hochul speaking to the reception attendees.

Hochul recounted her very first vote – rejecting the controversial budget proposal of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, whom she said still won’t meet her eyes on the House floor.

Hochul was at one time a legslative aide for former New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan and recalled an era when she’d often be sent to Republican Senators’ offices to collaborate with their staffers on bipartisan solutions to policy debates. She said she hoped to use that philosophical mindset to work with all members of the House to achieve compromise. But one issue Hochul didn’t seem willing to compromise on was health care – she ran her campaign on her commitment to protect Medicare and Medicaid, her surprising success in a typically conservative district interpreted by some to be a public referendum on the Ryan budget plan.

I met a fabulous UNC alum at the event, too – she was a policy adviser for PPFA and told me all about her career path (which was definitely indirect) and invited me to stay in touch. Networking is so much easier when you’ve had a couple glasses of wine…


response: “are slutwalkers losing their way?”

A friend of mine recently forwarded me an op-ed, “Are SlutWalkers losing their way?” written by Victoria Coren, a columnist for The Observer (who usually writes about poker). In it, Coren expresses skepticism about the recent “SlutWalk” movement, which started in Toronto but has since spread across the world. Women have been taking to the streets, often dressed revealingly, in protest of a Canadian policeman’s advice to a group of students in a self-defense class. He suggested they avoid “dressing like sluts” to improve their personal safety.

Implying that a woman could in some way be faulted for having been violently attacked by a man is problematic, perpetuating the myth that victims of rape should be blamed for their rapists’ crimes if they have too much to drink, are scantily clad or are deemed otherwise irresponsible.

This mindset isn’t rare–rape victims are very commonly blamed for their attacks or are questioned as if they’re on trial themselves, and this treatment is likely the reason most rapes go unreported.

But Coren ignores all of this crucial context necessary to understanding the plight of rape victims in a victim-blaming culture. Instead, she asserts “It’s not rapists who think skimpy outfits are a contributory factor. It’s just lazy-minded cultural observers, tutters behind net curtains, knitters at the guillotine. They’re annoying, but they’re not dangerous.” But Coren misses the mark–not only does she underplay the number of people who believe rape myths, she misunderstands their consequences.

I’ve encountered many challenging rape myths through my work as an interpersonal violence prevention activist on my campus. As a peer educator, I often talk with students who perpetuate rape myths. They should not simply be considered “lazy-minded cultural observers.” They’re unknowingly part of a broader culture that supports their views; victim-blaming is prevalent in the media, in the justice system and in traditional attitudes toward gender roles. The saturation of our culture with rape myths isn’t simply “annoying.” It shapes our mindsets–and hurts survivors.

Coren suggests that rather than question the overall culture and call for radical change, feminists should remain content working inside a liberal framework, getting more rapists convicted, even if only for short jail terms. She prescribes “real, practical, legal change to help other women and identify serious villains. SlutWalks are firing at the wrong target, baring arms against an irrelevant enemy.” Coren doesn’t see that the “irrelevant enemy” is our patriarchal society itself, and that calling attention to the root of the problem is essential for progress.

I’m not satisfied with purely legal changes if they don’t come with a parallel culture shift. Until the words “she was asking for it” are completely dissolved from our dialogue surrounding sexual assault, I’ll continue to challenge rape myths and encourage survivors to empower themselves in a society deliberately structured to prevent them from doing so. Coren can stick to Texas Hold’em.

Check out the SlutWalk being planned for Greensboro, NC on August 27 here.


new faces, more voices session 2

Note–this post is long! You’ll probably prefer to skim it; I didn’t try to shorten because I wanted everything here for my own reference later (you know, since I’ll probably lose my actual notes)!

I’ve been meaning to create a post from my notes from the second session of the New Faces, More Voices program for a few days now. The topic of the program, which took place on Thursday, June 16, and was so exciting it inspired me to create this blog, was “Help on the Home Front: Effective Advocacy Strategies for Domestic Women’s Issues” and featured a panel of three fabulous career feminists who talked about their work and current challenges for American women’s rights. I think some of their discussion was awesome and want to share it with folks back in Chapel Hill!

The first speaker was Rachel Lyons, Work and Family Government Affairs Manager for the National Partnership for Women and Families, a group that advocates for U.S. women’s economic justice. The National Partnership is particularly concerned with workplace and work-family balance issues and frequently works with my internship organization, IWPR. Lyons got her start working on Democratic political campaigns before turning her career toward policy. She suggested that campaign work was a great “crash course” for activists because it helps them get a feel for the political dynamics they’re up against.

Lyons explained some of the work the National Partnership has done for specific policy goals. She explained that current workplace policy in the U.S. doesn’t reflect the reality of the work force–even though 50 percent of the work force is now comprised of women, and many of them serve as heads of household, workplace policy still reflects a time when women stayed home caring for children while their husbands worked. This antiquated assumption about the nuclear family as the norm is why the U.S. has embarrassingly sub-par provisions for maternity and sick leave, as well as pay equity, compared to other developed countries.

Paid sick leave is one of the National Partnership’s most important policy areas. It has pushed for the Healthy Families Act, which would allow for seven paid sick days for full-time workers, at the federal level as well as simultaneous action at the state and local levels, a strategic move that allows for smaller “testing grounds” for new legislation before pushing for broader approval. Sick leave was approved in San Francisco in 2006 (and was proved successful) and was passed in Connecticut only a few weeks ago. Ballot initiatives in Seattle, Denver and New York City are pending, as is legislation in Philadelphia.

Lyons also mentioned the National Partnership’s work attempting to expand the Family Medical Leave Act, pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (side note: I met Lilly this year! Maybe I’ll post the photo soon), and collaborate on the Wal-Mart class action lawsuit for pay equity. She said she thought the next battle for women would be against pregnancy discrimination.

Pat Ruess was the second speaker. She’s a lobbyist for the YWCA who served for many years as policy adviser and lobbyist for NOW. Ruess is an expert on the Violence Against Women Act and was instrumental in its passage. Not only is she a trailblazing feminist, she’s a total badass. Ruess described the devastating history of the violence prevention movement and her personal story of radicalization, which started with her advocacy to establish the first domestic violence shelter in Montana. She became a strong anti-violence advocate and worked with the NOW Legal Defense Fund to build a coalition that would help pass VAWA, which would win federal funding for shelters across the country. It wasn’t until then-Senator Joe Biden became interested in violence against women advocacy in the late 1980s (supposedly after someone approached him at a fundraising dinner and told him his daughter was at risk, just like every other young woman in America) that the proposed bill began to make headway. VAWA was originally bipartisan when it was signed under President Clinton in 1994, and it was passed nearly unanimously through both houses.

But now VAWA faces its fourth reauthorization in a hostile environment for women’s rights. Ruess hopes this time to include special provisions for women in ethnic communities, disabled women, older women, teenagers (where are their resources if they’re in abusive relationships that aren’t necessarily domestic?), Native American women (who suffer sexual violence at two times the rate of the general population), women in the armed forces and members of the LGBTQ communities. She hopes these topics will be included in an omnibus reauthorization bill, but since VAWA has unfortunately become a partisan issue in the years following its first passage, her goals may become too controversial for acceptance. You know, because disabled women, old women, young women and lesbian women just don’t quite count much to legislators these days…

The final speaker was Angela Sutton, Senior Health Policy Associate for the Black Women’s Health Imperative. Sutton described her organization’s extensive advocacy for reproductive justice, explaining the intersecting oppressions that must be considered when fighting for justice, as well as its work on maternal health and breast cancer. Black women are four times more likely to suffer maternal mortality and are disproportionately diagnosed with breast cancer.

Right now the Health Imperative is focusing on the budget negotiations and controversial debate regarding the level of the debt ceiling. It also is concerned with cuts to Medicaid, which would severely limit access to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income women. The organization has begun campaigns working to address sociocultural breast cancer disparities (check out “Moving Beyond Pink“) and to combat the negative anti-choice messages recently targeted at black and Hispanic women.

Sutton said one of the lessons she’s learned from the attacks on reproductive rights in recent months is that when the national temperature is hostile toward progressive policies for reproductive health, even if it’s possible to stave off federal attacks, they’ll achieve far more success at the state level.

When asked about how to gain victories in troubling times like these, Lyons said the National Partnership sometimes attempts smaller victories at administrative levels. An example would be the Department of Education’s recent statement to universities on their responsibility to enforce Title IX regulations when dealing with sexual assaults on campus.

Ruess said violence prevention advocates at universities should collaborate on their efforts to identify weaknesses and define need.

Check out the hashtag for New Faces, More Voices at #2011nfmv. I’m trying to get some other members of the program to collaborate on it!