Gender-based violence is perhaps the most wide-spread and socially tolerated of human right violation. It both reflects and reinforces inequities between men and women and compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims. (United Nations Population Fund 2005:65)
One fundamental component of Social Work is the understanding, working and practice of anti-oppressive community development work. The knowledge of how communities function and the limits and possibilities of achieving inclusive communities is vital when a social worker is engage in the task to achieve a fair society where equality and justice are fundamental principles. Safety and ending violence is central to women in order to achieve and enjoy other fundamental rights. Violence against women, diminished social status, gender inequalities and more particularly, sexual abuse have been the reality of women for many years. Their struggle for equality is not a recent issue. Sexual violence is one of the most pervasive forms of violation of women’s human rights as well as a serious public health problem. It has a profound impact on physical and mental health both in a short and in a long term after the assault. The recognition of the fact that violence against women reflects the breach of their human rights must be considered as a significant turning point in the struggle against violence (UNIFEM, 2003). However, this issue that brought responsibility for governmental and non-governmental institutions has not been properly addressed. Attention to the problem, has not received sufficient consideration from policy-makers, researchers, and programme designers and there have been a lot of struggles to have violence against women recognised as a legitimate public health issue.
Supporting sexually assaulted women it has been a problem for many communities. To address this problem, critical feminist thinkers and organizations working to end violence against women have played a crucial role. The aim of this paper is to analyze the patterns of oppression by which violence against women is exerted. In doing that, it will be important to trace its cause(s) and see how the non recognition of women’s human rights has a profound impact in the development of communities. In this respect, a twofold question arises:
How could women’s movements for promotion of their own distinct rights contribute in betterment of women’s social status in general, and prevention of violence in particular?
In order to analyze and address the question, I argue that human rights movements, as the most influential institutions of civil society, can challenge the patterns of violation, oppression, and violence against women and that grass root organizations working at immediate level with women survivors of violence, can have a major impact in the way communities assess this problem, build coalitions and relationships and have a participatory decision making when addressing the problem of violence against women. In particular, I will draw on a case study – the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa, (hereafter SASC)– to examine how and to what extents women’s movement against violence have been successful to achieve their goal and how their practice of anti-oppressive work has contribute in the community development.
To advance the argument, I will use critical feminist theory as the most appropriate theoretical framework for this investigation. Critical feminist theory, as it will be argued shortly, has the potential to interrogate the nature of the dominant patriarchal culture which is permissive in formation and construction of the oppressive structures against women. Nancy Fraser admits the appropriateness of this theory by arguing that the “sexual harassment is not only a matter of gender and racial domination but one of status and class domination as well” (Fraser, 1997).
For methodological purpose, this paper is divided into three sections. In the first section I will briefly examine the historical background in which women’s movement against violence emerged. The second section will be focus in analyzing the rights of women as human rights by drawing on the international Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. In order to contextualize the success and perils of this convention, in the third section I will take SASC as the practical focus of my examination.
The work and structure of SASC will be used as an analytic tool to illustrate the implications of community practices from various perspectives. I will arguing that in the struggles of women to achieve justice the relationship building, the way women organize themselves, their action plans and tactics, their building coalition and how they have a participatory decision making are a clear example of how community work can have an impact in the way society respond to oppressive situations.
I- Historical Background in which Women’s Movement against Violence has Emerged
Sexual assault prevention is a relatively a new field of practice and study, emerging out of the social movements of the late 1960s and 1970s. In the 1970s, most of the studies in the area of violence against women tended to be rooted in a criminal justice perspective (Johnson, Ollus, & Nevala, 2008). As Lee Lakeman states, only twenty years ago many of us remember life with no rape crisis centres, no transition houses and no women’s centre. At that time, when women were attacked, if they survived, each one had to seek on her own whatever help or support she could find among family and friends. Battered women in need of money to pay their own rent and be able to leave the abuser were not assisted by the government if they applied for welfare. The rational of those officers was that they did not want to support the breaking of the families. Government policies were oriented to support family stability. Immigrant wives were deported for reporting the attacks of their sponsor husbands (Lakeman, 1993). Micheline Beaudry, also argues that at the time, violence against women was considered as a private problem; therefore women should overcome these with private solutions (Beaudry, 1985).
Between 1970 and 1975 women in Canada organized the first battered women’s shelters and rape crisis centres in the world (Beaudry, 1985).Johanna Den Hertog and a group of women opened Canada’s first Rape Relief in Vancouver in 1973 and the Toronto Rape Crisis centre was formed within that year. Raminder Dosanjh and a group of women formed the Indian Mahilla organization and began dealing with violence in the Indo-Asian community. Trudy Don was part of a collective establishing Interval House in Toronto in 1973. The same year, Lee Lakeman and a group of women opened a more rural centre in Woodstock, Ontario. Shortly after that, Donna Miller filled a house in Windsor and also in Quebec, Montreal, Sherbrooke, Prt-Alfred and Longueuil the first shelters opened. Since then, as Micheline Beaudry claimed, “no battered woman would now be force to go back home. The women working in shelters would encourage the victims to tackle the real problem. They would determine how serious the problem was and begin to speak about it (Beaudry, 1985) However, as groups of women began to intervene, they encountered terrible ignorance and anti- women hostility in their communities. Politicians accused feminists of being unrealistic as well as threatening the family institution. Local clergy and local police chiefs were claiming that their works were endangered by feminists. Despite of those obstacles, women came to the centres, provided each other with safety and understanding, exchanged their stories, assisted each other and filled facilities to capacity (Beaudry, 1985).
In the 1990s, violence against women also began to be viewed as a public health problem and was identified as the most important cause of injury and death to women. In 1993, violence against women became recognised as human rights’ issue since the Global campaign for Women’s Human Rights placed the rights of women on the agenda of the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna (Renzetti, Edleson, & Bergen, 2001) In 1995, by the definition adopted in the Beijing Declaration, trafficking in women was also recognized as a form of violence against women. According to this platform for action, violence against women is considered a barrier to the achievement of equality, development and peace (www.un.org/womenwatch).
2. The rights of women as human rights by drawing on the international Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Violence against women is now recognised as a human rights violation and a major public health issue (Johnson, Ollus, & Nevala, 2008). It is also recognized that in addition to the negative effects for women themselves, the violence women experience can have profound effects on their children especially in those cases in which violence happens domestically. (Statistical Trends 2006- http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub.p2)
Despite of being recognized internationally as a matter of human rights’ violation, and despite all the legal and social changes that have occurred in the last decades in regard to the issue of violence against women, we continue witnessing cases of serious abuses. The problem of sexual violence and all forms of violence against women is to date a serious social and humanitarian concern in Canada. It is enough to look at some statistic data to realize the seriousness of the problem. According to Statistic Canada in the Violence against Women Survey, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women and the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa:
- 51% of Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16 (Statistic Canada, 1993).
- Violence against women occurs across all ethnic, racial, religious, age, social and economic groups. Some women are more vulnerable however, and are more likely to experience violence, including women with disabilities, geographically- isolated women, young women and Aboriginal women (SASC training manual, 2007)
- Every minute of every day, a Canadian woman or child is being sexually assaulted (Canadian Research Institute, 1998).
- One to two women are murdered by a current of former partner each week in Canada (Dauvergne, 2002).
- Physical and sexual abuse costs Canada over $4 billion each year (factoring into account social services, criminal justice, lost employment days and health care interventions)( Greaves, Hankivsky, & Kingston-Riechters, 1995).
- Spousal violence makes up the single largest category of convictions involving violent offences in non-specialized adult courts in Canada over the five-year period 1997/98 to 2001/02. Over 90% of offenders were male (Statistic Canada, 2006).
- Thirty –six percent of female victims of spousal violence and less than 10% of victims of sexual assault reported these crimes to the police in 2004 (Statistic Canada, 2006).
In this regard, feminist’s movements have a profound role in educate women about the reality of violence and their rights to reduce violence against women in society. Feminist movement believes that male violence against women occurs in almost every society and while the forms and frequency of abuse may differ, aggression by men against women is a universal phenomenon that has many commonalities across cultures. Feminists also argue that not only women around the world remain at risk of violence by male strangers, but also women are at risk because violence is perpetrated most of the time by acquaintances, relatives, intimate partners and other men women know. However, women are told they could avoid beatings and rape by not talking to strangers, not going out alone, and not staying home alone. At the present time, women are still warned about the clothes they wore, the places they went, and their attitudes, but they were not warned about the danger of men and certainly not about men they know (Beaudry, 1985). The women’s liberation movement of the sixties encouraged women to share life experiences with each other and for the first time, women came to know and understand the extent of their victimization. Through the process of consciousness-raising, women began to analyze their condition in political and global terms, rather than as individual experiences (Brown, 1990). In fact we can assume that perception of the existence of battered women as a social phenomenon rather than a series of individuals contributed to the growth of a new solidarity among women. Without women’s movement and the lobbying and protest groups that nourished it, the problem of battered women would still be considered a private, individual problem, as it had been for centuries (Beaudry, 1985). However, violation of women’s right are often perpetrated by members of women’s communities, family members, coworkers or even strangers, generally targeted by human rights law. In fact, the existence of violence against women in a society will show the need of change in the area of human rights low (Peters, & Wolper, 1995)
As Charlotte Bunch has argued in her work Gender Violence, we have to see gender violence as one of the most pervasive and insidious human rights abuses that occur north, south, east and west of the world. It is the most pervasive, not only because of the numbers of women whose lives are directly affected as victims of gender violence, but also because of the impact that gender violence has on every woman in the world. Bunch argues that every woman, whether she is a direct victim of physical violence or not, shapes her life in many ways in response to gender violence. Women’s rights to mobility and political participation and political activism are also shaped every day by gender violence.
For women the jobs they take, the events they participate in, the hours they stay out, the feeling of where they can go and what they can do safely, is shaped by gender violence throughout the culture. The author suggests that in order to eradicate violence against women, we need, more than statistics, education, in order to understand and see violence and gender violence as a multi- faceted problem, and not a simple isolated problem of domestic violence (Bunch, & Carrillo, 1991). We have to understand that it is a political, economical and cultural problem intertwined with racial, class, cultural and religious oppression what pervades every area of our life and our work. Based on this understanding, we have to see violence against women as politically constructed structures that have been put in place to maintain women’s subordination. Only then, we can begin to make progress toward the deconstruction of the problem. As Charlotte suggests, we do not have to view violence against women as unavoidable and inevitable. Francine Pickup also argues that in order to produce more effective responses to violence against women, we must acknowledge the links between economic, political and social subordination (Pickup, 2001). This multilayer view of the problem of violence against women, has also been addressed by international researches such as the UNIFEM report “Violence Against Women as an Obstacle To Development” and it has been articulated in numerous UN Declarations and committees that draws in the disproportionate impact of violence in general and sexual violence in particular on the lives of girls and women. Several women’s organization such as the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa actively uphold principles of gender equality measures articulated in those international covenants. In the next section it will be presented an analysis of the Sexual Assault Support Centre SASC, in order to contextualize the success and perils of the international covenants and the impact that community work and grass root organizations have in the achievement of inclusive communities.
3. SASC, Practical examination of the role of community based organization in the building of fair societies.
In this section, the work and structure of SASC is used as an analytic tool to illustrate the implications of community practices from various perspectives. It can be said that violence against women does not only cause pain, suffering and fear to individual women, and also to women as a group, it also has a negative effect on the whole society (Pickup, 2001).
In order to reduce violence against women, politically and practically, the Sexual Assault Support Centre was formed in 1983 by the effort of Ashley Turner, Maureen McEvoy, Gretchen Hartley, Julie McCoy, Terry Lee Morgan, Liana Wadsworth, Marilyn Manuel and Jean Francis. SASC is a grassroots feminist organization working to end violence against women by supporting survivors of violence through different programs that address individual and collective needs of support. SASC as an organization was formed as an alternative to existing services, with a commitment to working collectively to provide services to incest survivors, to creating a lesbian-positive space centre, to engaging in political action, and to developing a centre run by and for survivors.
Their framework and analysis consider violence against women within a broad spectrum of experiences not only as a domestic level but also as a worldwide problem. In their objectives, SASC states that violence and particularly sexual violence is not about desires; it is about power, control and domination, and encompasses all forms of oppression (SASC Training Manual, 2006). Holly Johnson argues that “the relationship between men and women in marriage in the majority of societies has been hierarchical in which men have social status, power and control over their wives” (Johnson, Ollus, & Nevala, 2008). The philosophy of SASC also considers sexual violence as one of the pillars of patriarchy because without this form of violence patriarchy should not persist (SASC Training Manual, 2006). The United Nations in a study done by the general secretariat, also mentions that “the pervasiveness of violence against women across the boundaries of nation, culture, race, class and religion points to its roots in patriarchy- the systemic domination of men over women”(United Nation, 2006). SASC, supports women in addressing all issues of violence and encourages the sharing of experiences of different forms of coping used by women who have experienced sexual violence. The sharing experiences bring knowledge and benefit the healing process through validation and supportive listening. They also encourage dialogue among survivors to diminish feelings of isolation and to reassurance of survivors’ feelings. This practice makes survivors to re-gain strength and the feeling of self worth. The practice of sharing is offered using group support as a tool. One important part of SASC’s work is the networking and permanent communication and partnership with other organizations, groups and institutions in order to provide resources, information and support for women who have experienced violence. To promote fundamental change in the community, SASC provides public education and programs to increase awareness of the general public and of workers in health care, social services, and legal systems around issues of violence and oppression against women. This organization also tries to increase visibility of women’s issues and build community alliances to address the problem of violence against women. In their recording of community experiences, it was evidenced that despite of the oppressive situation that their former members had to endure as women, they were able to do this support work because of their relative privileges as a middle class, white women. Because SASC as an organization challenge and is committed to work in solidarity with women from all social, economic and political conditions, their work has been always oriented to work with and for all women in the community. The organization has been struggling to be inclusive and to work in partnership with other crisis centres and organizations fighting for the same goal: create structures that facilitate women access to services and equality. As it is mentioned in SASC’s Training Manual, the founding mothers of rape crisis centres in Canada was largely white, middle-class, and urban-based. They suggested that many of the centres have had all-white collectives, and have worked with primarily white women survivors of sexual assault (SASC Training Manual, 2006). This principle of inclusiveness has been achieved by the struggles and work done by women’s groups and other groups representing specific communities, particularly, though not limited to, differently able women, First Nations women, immigrant and refugee women, women from diverse cultures, ethnic and economic backgrounds, and lesbians. In order to impact fundamental changes in relevant legislation as well as changing a sexist and homophobic society, SASC is engaging in political action by lobbying government. Their involvement in political activism and actions make the public to be more aware. At the level of organization, SASC has been working with other organizations and groups through sitting on community committees, networks, coalitions and working groups (SASC Training Manual, 2006).
One important aspect that SASC, has mentioned as relevant in its work is their commitment to work collectively in decision making, lobbying and support. It has brought to SASC a capacity building and strength.
As Deborah Siegel points out in her new book, Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Girls Gone Wild, that women’s progress always has resisted, and always will resist to subordination. Work collectively for social change is a distinctive feature of women interaction and personal empowerment (Siegel, 2007). At SASC, the whole collective is usually task-oriented; women join together to do something. The philosophy that directs and shapes the way those women accomplish their goals are a very basic bonding force. These philosophies includes sharing common values, the way they understand themselves as women and what they see as the root of the problems they are challenging.
A collective arises out of a self-identity; it is created by its members. It grows and evolves as the members come and go, as they share and teach each other. Working together develops a sense of sisterhood in an atmosphere of closeness and support (SASC Training Manual, 2006). A collective is a respectful and kind way of working together as a small group. Then, consciousness-raising in this small group is one of key catalyst of that organization. As it is also mentioned in the book Feminism in Canada from Pressure to Politics, “ by consciousness-raising in a small group, we will return to the roots of female experience to construct a new ways of validating, defining and explaining women’s lives” (Miles, & Finn, 1981). In other word while [we] speak about our experiences and situations, we in fact insist upon the right to begin where we are, and to hear one another as the authoritative speakers of our experience (Miles, & Finn, 1981).
Through consciousness-raising, women “grasp the collective reality of women’s condition form within the perspective of that experience, not from outside of it” (Miles, & Finn, 1981). A collective system also offer more control over our lives, helps us to learn to respect others’ ideas and contributions, and allows us to share tasks, rewards, and mistakes. Based on SASC’s principles, the individual differences in knowledge and skills that each person bring to their collective is a source of strength and growth, which they always attempt to share these with each other. They recognize that different women have different skills; by rotating chairing, minute taking and other tasks , they allow skill sharing and increase general knowledge rather than concentrate power in the hands of a few. They also provide opportunities for members to learn new skills. All work positions in this collective organization are treated equally; there is no hierarchy of positions. All full and part time workers are paid the same salary regardless of job title, education, experience or length of employment at SASC (SASC Training Manual, 2006). As feminist approach suggests, the focus is on women helping women in a non-hierarchical, reciprocal and supportive way (Miles, & Finn, 1981). One of the unique tools that collectives use is “Check-in”. In any organization that is governed by collectivity, before each meeting starts, members hear briefly from other member how she is feeling and if she has any pre-occupations or needs of support from the group. This round serves to clarify the emotional climate of the meeting.
As part of SASC’s politics of collectivism, the decision making model that this organization use is consensus. Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the agreement of most participants. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned mainly with that process (http://en.wikipedia.org)
According to SASC’s policy on structure, consensus means that the input and ideas of all members are gathered, listened to, and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. It implies interactional decision making. It in fact, represents the extreme of highest participation and involvement from most women. In this process of decision making, each woman’s input, preferences, concerns, conditions “… are crucial in the context of the process. This is a cooperative learning process through which members support each other in the struggle to be more understanding, open, caring and effective human beings” (McMillan, 2007). It stresses the cooperative development of a decision with group members working together rather than competing against each other. However, consensus takes more time and member skill, uses lots of resources before a decision is made, creates commitment to the decision and often facilitates creative decisions. As Lesley suggests, “collective working and decision-making is compatible with feminist politics because it allows women to be heard and to express an opinion”(McMillan, 2007). Lesley McMillan , in a study done on the organizational structure of the feminist organizations, argues that workers who have a management committee or a board of directors were rarely seen as a good thing in itself (McMillan, 2007). As she states, workers accept this kind of management as a ‘necessary evil’. In her questionnaire, workers indicated that decisions were often made, or actions were taken, not in the best interests of the organization, or not in line with its feminist guiding values. The survey also suggests that despite management committees and managers think they are working towards empowering women (that in theory is the core values of the organization), they disempowering them by not hearing the women’s views and opinions. Moreover, whereas argument and conflict are inevitable in the process of decision making in organizations that are governed by collectivity, conflict is an important element that spurs people to clearer thinking, better understanding and greater creativity (SASC Training Manual, 2006).
In order to deal with and handle those conflicts within the organization, SASC tries to incorporate feminist and collective values into the organizational practices and procedures. One of the methods that this organization has borrowed for analyzing the thinking procedure is that the root of any action is criticism and self-criticism. As it is argued by Gracie Lyons, the overall goal of criticism and self-criticism is to help people to transform their character, attitudes and way of living; so that their movement increasingly embodies the values of the non-exploitative society they want to create. Then she suggested two ways that criticism can help people meet this ambitious goal. First, it helps them distinguish oppressive attitudes they have internalized from revolutionary attitudes. Second, criticism gives people a method of struggling to reach agreement on what they should do and why, bringing them together to carry out political work (Lyons, 1988). This perspective helps SASC to welcome struggle by showing that contradictions are in the nature of reality, and they have not to be feared, since differences push their progress forward. The perspective of contradiction also shows that a change arise primarily form contradictions inside a person. It can and should also arise from an internal commitment on the part of the one who is changing. Then, they will be eager to get contradictions out on the table so that they can solve problems and move thing forward. This method will also lead them to approach differences in a problem-solving environment, rather than with an attitude of blaming and punishing. As it is suggested in SASC Training Manual, “oppressed people share fundamental common interests, our conflicts should not be a clash of one personal interest against another, but a cooperative effort to discover the resolution that will advance the whole”(SASC Training Manual, 2006). While many groups have managed to retain collective structures and continue to rely on consensus to resolve conflicts and do fundamental changes, some other groups developed more hierarchical structures in which they incorporated a board of directors, coordinators or other positions that gave increased responsibility and power to some members more than others.
The most common rationale that critics indicated for collective structure is that collectives are inefficient and cannot effectively resolve conflicts that arise (SASC Training Manual, 2006). However, Joan Holmes and Joan Riggs (Adamson, Briskin, & Mc.Phail, 1988) respond to this critic arguing that the most common source of conflict is both an external force that pervades our society as well as a tendency we have all internalized. The dominant institutions in our society are hierarchical; on this respect the authors argue “…our training and socialization has taught us to give power to authorities and to seek their direction and approval. We are taught to pass responsibility onto others and expect to be powerless. In fact when we choose a collective structure we empower ourselves, taking responsibility on our own shoulders. We must make a decision together, and we must all be responsible for carrying them through” (SASC Training Manual, 2006). They also argue that collective structures are clearly at odds with all society’s previous training. We have few models to copy, few codes of behaviour to follow. There are no set patterns for dealing with conflict or for problem-solving. This poses a creative challenge for every group that establishes as a collective. According to them, every member must work within the group and within herself to create new approaches to group process and problem-solving. The fact that collective structures are unusual in our society causes problems when people inside a collective organization have to deal with institutions outside of the group (SASC Training Manual, 2006).
The other critic is about the procedure of decision making in collective structure. The argument is that decision making within a collective structure can be time-consuming. However, some groups suggest that we should hold discussions until we reach a decision or compromise that everyone live with that decision. This process is, of course, very time-consuming. The group must accept that they may miss opportunities to take action or participate in some events. The decisions reached in this way, however, tend to be more satisfactory to all members. This approach to decision-making seems to be adopted by groups that place a very high value on process and believe that how decisions are made are critical to the functioning of the group. Another thing that might effect on decision making is a power imbalance that exists between the knowledge of the members of the group. This could potentially create difficulties in maintaining equality in decision-making. Conflict arises when specific knowledgeable individuals use their position to force decisions or impose their will on the group. However, others begin to feel powerless or not qualified to make decisions, and so become easier to manipulate. Nevertheless, it has to be accepted that this very real danger, is for the sake of efficiency. Several groups assign particular tasks to individuals and accept their guidance and advice in making related decisions. Often groups chose to rotate functions so that over time, knowledge and skills become equalized throughout the group.
Different ideas, backgrounds and philosophies also can also create disagreement over political decisions. Some groups suggest that openly stating political philosophies help to prevent conflicts of this type, while, a few groups have used facilitators or resource people to lead discussions and workshops to help raise the consciousness of all members to a common level. Common goals and principles have also a profound and essential role in a smooth decision-making. However, conflicts and disagreement are inevitable. An important goal for feminists struggling to resolve conflict is to reach resolution without creating winners and losers. Clear and honest communication and exchange of information are crucial to reaching a compromise (SASC Training Manual, 2006). The functioning of SASC as a collective is a practical example of how community work can be developed and how organizations can function to achieve inclusive and anti-oppressive communities.
CONCLUSION
Violence against women is a constant and ongoing problem in Canada and around the world. It affects women’s social and economic equality, physical and mental health, well-being and economic security. It is now recognised as a human right violation and an obstacle to the achievement of equality, development and peace.
It can be said that collectivity is one of the most popular form of governance in feminist organizations. As Lesley McMillan argues, feminist organizations are often associated with collective forms of organization. McMillan research found that 62% of women centres that were questioned to indicate what form of organization they used indicated a form of collective organization, while only 24% used a form of hierarchical. The remaining centers described the system of organization as being either democratic or cooperative (McMillan, 2007). It is important to recognize that feminists are committed to collectives because collectives are based upon a set of values that are compatible with feminism. They both speak to the integrity of human beings- to people being responsible, able to control their own lives and make decisions. Both recognize power and the consequences of structural oppression. Collectives attempt to eliminate the structural imbalances of power: there are no authority figures, no formal lines of accountability. Feminist organizations attempt to recognize informal power-the personal power as coming from having more information, being able to communicate articulately, and developing a privileged background. Feminism, as a movement, use humanitarian principles and collectivism and make a basic commitment to thoughtful, honest and clear communication, which facilitates new approaches toward resolution of conflict.
Through the study of how society in general and women movement in particular address the problem of violence against women is important in the sense that women’s organizations have built strong relationships between them so they can support and empower each other. The role of gender structures and identities in community organizing has been crucial to set examples of community organizing models. Despite most of social movements scholars did not pay enough attention to the role that gender structures and identities play in social movements. As Susan Stall states in her article Community Organizing or Organizing Community? Gender and the Crafts of Empowerment (Stall, 1998) . Gender is a variable in social movements … yet, “the organizational structure and practices of social movement organizations and actors are not gender neutral. Gender structures, as social products of interactional work are also produced and reproduced through social movement actions (West and Zimmerman 1987, 126). In the future of social work, it will be crucial to understand that community organizing is “neglected for the same reasons that women’s work in social movements has been neglected” (Stall, 1998). Therefore, Barnett argued that the women-centered organizing model begins with “organizing community” will trough light to the fact that women’s organization can teach us that organizing communities has to be made on the base of “community building, collectivism, caring, mutual respect, and self-transformation” (as cited in Stall, 1998, p. 155).
Bibliography:
Adamson, N., Briskin, L., & Mc.Phail, M. (1988). Feminist organizing for change: the contemporary women’s movement in Canada; Feminist organization part II: conflict and change (pp. 254-256). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R. (1990). Being Brown: a very public life (pp.78). Toronto: Ballantine Books.
Beaudry, M. (1985). Battered women(pp.12,18, 19,22, 24-29, 36, 53,70, 89). Montreal: Black Rose.
Bunch, C., & Carrillo, R. (1991). Gender violence: a development and human rights issue (pp.9-29). New York: Cici Kinsman.
Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, Fact sheet: extrapolated from Ontario Women’s Directorate, Dispelling the Myths about Sexual Assault (1998). Queen’s Printer.
Dauvergne, M., (2002), Homicide in Canada- 2001, Juristat 22(7), Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada.
Fraser, N.(1997). justice interruptus: critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition(pp.104,105,112). New York: Routledge.
Greaves, L., Hankivsky, O., & Kingston-Riechters, J. (1995). Selected estimates of the costs of violence against women (pp.3-7). London, Ontario: Centre for Research on Violence against Women and Children.
Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008). Violence against women:an international perspective (pp.3,67-69, 104). New York: Springer.
Lyons, G. (1988). Constructive criticism : a handbook (pp.67-73). California: Wingbow Press.
Lakeman, L. (1993). National Action Committee on the Status of Women, “99 Federal Steps”. http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/99stepsintro.html
Miles, A. R., & Finn, G. (1981). Feminism in Canada: from pressure to politics (PP. 198, 199, 275), Montreal: Black Rose Books.
McMillan, L. (2007). Feminist organizing against gendered violence(pp.142-148, 152). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peters, J.S., & Wolper, A. (1995). Women’s rights, human rights: international feminist perspectives . New York: Routledge.
Pickup, F. (2001). Ending violence against women: a challenge for development and humanitarian work (46-48, 68). UK: Oxfam Publication .
Renzetti, C.M., Edleson, J.L., & Bergen, R.K. (2001). Sourcebook on violence against women (pp.270-289). California: Sage Publicatins, Inc.
Sexual Assault Support Training Manual, Chapter 1: Introduction to SASC, pp.(1-1)-(1-4), 2-12, 3-17, 3-27-30, 3-19.
Statistic Canada, The Violence Against Women Survey, The Daily, November 18, 1993
Statistics Canada, Measuring Violence Against Women, Statistical Trends 2006.
Stall, S. (1998). Community organizing or organizing community? gender and the crafts of empowerment. Gender and Society, 12(6), 730, 733.
Siegel, D. (2007). Sisterhood, interrupted: from radical women to girls gone wild(pp. 125-132).
United State: Palgrave Macmillan .
United Nation Development Found for Women (UNIFOM), Annual Report (2003).
United nation, Initials. (2006). Ending violence against women: from words to action. United Nation Publication, 795, 28.