There are a few words and phrases in the American vernacular of which I am immediately skeptical, and feminism is one of them. I am a working mother who used to feel like the odd-[wo]man-out at my old church, surrounded by SAHMs — most of whom also home-schooled. I felt like my life was under a microscope. They never came right out and challenged me about my choice (obligation, need, whatev) to work outside the home, and to their credit, they were delightful ladies, so perhaps the pressure was self-imposed. At any rate, I never really felt like I fit in.

I took the minimum 6 weeks off with each of my childbirths, for the sole reason that I did not have enough vacation time accumulated to take more. In two of the three cases, I took leave without pay just to make it 6 weeks. So, other than brief maternity leave, I’ve never known what it is like to be a SAHM.

Am I a feminist because I work outside the home? I’m not sure about the answer to that. Actually, I’ve always assumed that I was not a feminist because of two main reasons: a) I am opposed to abortion, and b) I support women who elect not to work outside the home (provided it is their choice to do so and not imposed upon them). Regardless of whether the woman works a regular job or not, however, I do believe that men should be household helpers and know how to (and be actively willing to) change a diaper and cook a meal. Am I a feminist because I believe that men should pull their weight around the house? Perhaps, but I don’t know.

So, in an effort to challenge myself and broaden my perspective, I’m planning to write one of my term papers on the feminist ideology. There are no shortages of articles on the topic, so I’m going to look at feminism from the lens of Thomas L. Friedman’s “flat world” model. The World is Flat addresses the rapid technological changes that are “flattening” the globe, in a virtual sense.

I have only a vague outline right now, but I’m thinking of three sections:

1. Women as breadwinners (how globalization is opening doors to women in poverty)
2. Women as global leaders (exploring technology and political involvement)
3. Women as change agents (looking at human rights, social justice, etc.)

We’ll see where it goes from there, but that’s my starting point. I’ll be sure to write another post when I figure out whether or not I’m a feminist. 😉

I’ve been tossing around some ideas since the spring term about research adventures that might help me narrow down my dissertation topic. Unfortunately, academia moves at the speed of molasses sometimes, and delays that are out of my control have caused my side project to come to a halt. I am still hopeful that we’ll finish the paper eventually, but right now it’s on Pause.

I need to begin seriously paring down my ideas and formulating a dissertation topic. The problem is that I have too many interests! I am curious about the far-reaching impact of philanthropy, but my first foray into the subject didn’t provide the definitive results that I was hoping for. I was trying to see if private philanthropy played a role in driving public funding, but the example I used (Carnegie funding for U.S. libraries) was too disjointed to make a real connection. (Carnegie funding dried up, for the most part, in the early 1900s/teens, but federal funding didn’t begin until decades later, so it’s hard to say whether the former truly influenced the latter.)

I am interested in forecasting techniques and applying models from other disciplines (management, communication studies, etc.) to philanthropy — specifically, charitable giving in synthetic environments. I believe that we are on the cutting-edge of some really spectacular advances in social media types of technology, and philanthropy plays a role in that. It’s an under-researched area — which is challenging, on one hand, because there is little foundation, but it’s exciting, on the other hand, to think of playing a part in laying that foundation!