Feminism and Social Work Essays

Feminism and Social Work Essays Feminism and Social Work Essay Feminism and Social Work Essay citing Bunch ( 1980 ) , defined feminism asâ€Å"transformational political relations that aims at the dismantlement of allpermanent power hierarchies in which one class of worlds dominatesor controls another class of humans† ( 372 ) . â€Å"In the feminist andempowerment traditions, the personal is political, and individualchange and societal alteration are seen as interdependent† ( Deitz 2000,372 ) . Feminism contends it is non equal to merely include adult females inthe world’s political and power systems, as these were designed by andfor work forces and hence favour a extremely masculinised mechanism forresponding to issues and necessitate adult females working within these systems todo the same ( Scott 1988, Moylan 2003 ) . Simply including adult females is notenough ; society must give women’s experiences equal clip andconsideration, finally recasting the very significances of the subjects it considers ( Scott 1988 ) . Rather, feminism argues adult females must be engagedin both the system development and decision-making procedures that shapeour society ( Moylan 2003 ) .Consequently, one country where feminism has peculiarly challengedtraditional positions is in the country of gender functions. For illustration, Dominelli and McLeod ( 1989 ) examine the manner in which societal problemsare defined, recognizing gender as peculiarly of import inunderstanding client groups, and emphasis classless relationshipsbetween healers and clients. Gender is besides an importantconsideration of societal work due to the patriarchal society that stilldominates most of our universe. This power model remainders on a footing ofhegemonic maleness ( Cohn and Enloe 2003 ) . Connell ( 1995 ) createdthe term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ to depict the valued definition ofmanhood in a society. He argues that whilst there are multiplepossible malenesss in a civilization, merely one or a fe w are most valuedor considered ideal ( Connell 1995 ) . This gender definition isconstructed both in relation to muliebrity and to other, subordinatedmasculinities, and is used to warrant both men’s domination of adult females, and the hegemonically masculine man’s power over other work forces ( Cohn andWeber 1999 ) .Whilst adult females are progressively being included in universe systems, thesystems themselves still were designed for and run by and for work forces. Therefore, adult females who participate within the system must make so from maleparadigm, even if it is sometimes at odds with their ain preferencesfor how to travel about covering with a state of affairs ( Cohn and Enloe 2003 ) .Feminism historically is a â€Å"critique of male domination, the belief thatgender order was socially constructed and could non be changed† ( Cott1989,205 ) . Masculinity is frequently defined as what is non feminine, andfemininity as what is non masculine, although under standing thedynamics of one requires sing both the workings of the other andthe relationship and convergence between the two ( Cohn and Enloe 2003 ) . Masculine definitions are frequently based on strength, domination andviolence, whilst feminine on failing, nurturing, compassion andpassitivity ( Rabrenovic and Roskos 2001 ) . The consequence is pressure onmen adhering to a hegemonic definition of maleness to see signifiers ofaddressing struggle other than a physical or masculine response asfeminine and a menace to their manhood ( Moylan 2003 ) .The popular construct of gender holds that maleness and muliebrity are unchanging looks based on the chromosomal male and femalebodies ( Butler 1990 ) . â€Å"Gender is assumed to be ‘hard-wired, ’ at leastin part† ( Hawkesworth 1997 ) . Masculine actions and desires for work forces andfeminine actions and desires for adult females entirely are normal, thesemasculine and feminine traits are non a affair of pick, and allindividuals can be classified as one or the other ( Hawkesworth 1997 ) . However, whilst our society work forces are considered strong and dominant, andwomen passive and nurturing, â€Å"the significances of male and female bodiesdiffer from one civilization to another, and alteration ( even in our ownculture ) over time† ( Connell 1993, 75 ) . For illustration, there have beenâ€Å"periods in Western history when the modern convention that mensuppress shows of emotion did non use at all, when work forces wereeffusive to their male friends and demonstrative about their feelings† ( Connell 1993, 75 ) . â€Å"Masculinities and feminities are constructed oraccomplished in societal procedures such as kid raising, emotional andsexual relationships, work and politics† ( Connell 1993, 75 ) .Feminism, nevertheless, contends gender is a constructed by each civilization, and as a societal pattern involves the incorporation of specificsymbols, which support or distort human potency ( Hawkesworth 1997 ) . Gender is created through â€Å"discursively constrained performative Acts of the Apostless, †and the repeat of these Acts of the Apostless over clip creates gender for theindividual in society ( Butler 1990, x ) . Peoples learn to â€Å"act† likewomen or work forces are supposed to ; adult females are taught to act in a femininemanner, work forces are taught to move in a masculine mode. This is oftenreinforced by authorization figures, such as societal workers. Barnes ( 2003 ) cites a figure of surveies which find societal workers frequently assume theâ€Å"disciplinary gaze† of impressions of â€Å"what and how to be adult female, †perpetuating traditional gender functions ( 149 ) . â€Å"Armed with stiff codesof gender appropriate behaviours, societal workers frequently sought toregulate and mediate women’s interactions with the societal, economic, and political world† ( Barns 2003, 149 ) .Feminism and societal work portion a figure of similarities. Both believeâ€Å"in the built-in worth and self-respect of all individuals, the value of processover merchandise, the grasp of unity-diversity, the importance ofconsidering the person-in- environment, and a committedness to personalempowerment and active engagement in society as a agency to bringabout meaningful societal change† ( Baretti 2001, 266-267 ) . Similarly, both feminism and societal work address multiple attacks to handlingsituations, disputing the institutionalised subjugation common in manypower constructions and back uping â€Å"the reconceptualization andredistribution of that power† ( Baretti 2001, 267 ) .It follows that one impact of feminism on societal work practise is theconsideration of issues from a societal instead than personalperspective. For illustration, this might include sing a domesticviolence state of affairs non from the position that the household isdysfunctional, but from the position o f the society that created thefamily. The psychology-based focal point of clinical societal work â€Å"oftenleads to individualising societal jobs, instead than to sing themas the consequence of dealingss of power, chiefly subjugation and abuse† ( Deitz 2000, 369 ) . As such, persons sing such difficultiesare â€Å"taught† that their peculiar experiences are inappropriate, instead than turn toing the systems that created the troubles in thefirst topographic point ( Deitz 2000, 369 ) .Dominelli and McLeod ( 1989 ) re-evaluate societal work pattern from afeminist position, sing the maps of societal work such astherapy, community interaction, and policy doing non from apathological point of view but from one of defined functions endorsed bysocietal conditions. As such, they contend that working from afeminist position allows the societal worker to turn to the causes ofsocial issues, instead than the symptoms played out in individual’slives ( Dominelli and McLeod 19 89 ) .One country of difference in societal work practise between those operatingfrom a feminist model and a traditional model is the construct ofdistance. Traditionally, the â€Å"patriarchal prejudice against relationalityand connection† is intended to take to â€Å"connection without injury, lovewithout power maltreatment, touching without sexual maltreatment in psychotherapy† ( Deitz 2000, 377 ) . Unfortunately, in practise it frequently consequences inâ€Å"power over† relationships where those having services feel â€Å"lessthan† those supplying them. â€Å"Healing happens when person feels seen, heard, held, and empowered, non when 1 is interpreted, held at adistance, and pathologized† ( Deitz 2000, 377 ) . Deitz ( 2000 ) finds thatsocial workers frequently institutionalize a â€Å"power over† stance fromprofessional preparation and discourse that constructs the individualities ofclients as somehow disordered, dysfunctional or impaire d. â€Å"Whetherbetween parents and kids ; doctors and patients ; societal workersand consumers of services ; White persons and Blacks ; or straight persons andlesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals, power overrelationships give the dominant spouses or group the right to definethe significances of subordinates’ experiences ( including their opposition ) and therefore their chances for self-affirmation† ( Deitz 2000,373 ) .This creates professional relationships that ignore theenvironmental, historical, and societal contexts of the job, discountpeople’s strengths and resiliency in appraisal and intercession, andlead â€Å"to the objectification of people as diagnosings, instead than toempowerment† ( Deitz 2000, 370 ) . â€Å"The keys to empowerment in feministmicro pattern are reconnection and transmutation through politicalactivity ; subsisters of subjugation and maltreatment experience reconnectionthrough relationships based on mutualness, coaction, andtrustworthiness† ( Deitz 2000, 376 ) .Theories from societal work, psychological science, and peculiarly developmentalpsychology describe authorization as chiefly a procedure, with thepersonal transmutation of the single going empowered at itsfoundation ( Carr 2003, 8 ) . Barriers to empowerment and jobs ofdisenfranchisement caused by impotence are chiefly political, instead than psychological. Powerlessness is defined as the inabilityto efficaciously manage one’s emotions, cognition, accomplishments, or resources ; it is â€Å"derived from the absence of external supports and the existenceof ontological â€Å"power blocks† that become incorporated into a person’sdevelopment† ( Carr 2003, 13 ) . As such, many subsisters besides work toreconnect to others in their communities, frequently seeking politicalactivity that â€Å"emphasizes the authorization of others, such as byorganizing Take Back the Night Marches or speak-outs , volunteering forcrisis hot lines, seeking legislative alterations, or going socialworkers or human service professionals† ( Deitz 2000, 376 ) .For illustration, feminist work with maltreatment subsisters â€Å"emphasizes therelationship between maltreatment and oppressive societal dealingss ( Deitz 2000,374 ) . On the other manus, the dominant clinical societal work attack tooppression and maltreatment relocates the job of subjugation in victims.Psychological theories are typically employed, which â€Å"locates pathologyin persons, instead than in oppressive relationships and systems, and considers the long-run effects of subjugation to be symptoms ofindividual pathology† ( Deitz 2000, 374 ) . Unfortunately, whilst manysocial workers have been exposed to or even personally supportoperating from a womens rightist model, the systems in which they workprevent them from actively using feminist penetration in their dailypractise. Research Plan This research seeks to analyze the prevalence and impact of traditionaland womens rightist practician concepts from the position of thoseserved. Specifically, a focal point group survey will be conducted with agroup of college pupils, all of whom are presently analyzing socialwork and hence have some construct sing societal work pattern, womens rightist and traditional worldviews. In add-on, all pupils in thefocus group will hold experienced domestic force and have beenprovided the services of a societal worker in some signifier during theirteenage old ages.Three countries of treatment will be undertaken by the group. These willbe provided to single group participants in composing several daysbefore the group in order for pupils to hold clip to see whatthey would wish to portion sing their sentiments and ain experiences. The first group activity will affect making definitions ofâ€Å"masculine† and â€Å"feminine† from the position of a typical socialworker based on the students’ teenage experiences. Students will thenbe asked to discourse where, if at all, they personally feel they andtheir household members who were involved in the domestic violencesituation ( s ) â€Å"fit† sing these preconceived definitions. It isanticipated some pupils will hold been uncomfortable with societalconstraints they or their household experienced as adolescents. As all arestudying societal work, they are besides anticipated to do moreconnections between social power issues, hegemonic gender functions, andtheir influence on domestic force than a focal point group without suchbackground. The 3rd country of treatment will center on how thestudents’ perceptual experiences of their societal worker ( s ) apprehension of genderroles influenced their and their households response of adequateservice.The research worker will both tape record and take notes on the groupdiscussions. Datas gathered from the group will so be compiled andanalysed. In add-on, pupils from the focal point group will be given theoption to compose a response to the group activity, if they so desire. These will be farther included in the group informations. Methodology Data aggregation involved four agencies. Prior to the group get downing, each participant was given a questionnaire ( see Appendix 3 ) to gatherbasic demographic information. The questionnaire besides asked for abrief sum-up of their opprobrious state of affairs. Sing informations aggregation ofthe group proceedings, as described above the focal point group session wastape-recorded and the research worker took notes to supplement the recordingof group treatment. The recorded Sessionss were so transcribed intoprint signifier, with research notes added in at the chronologicallyappropriate points of the written text to supply a more completewritten overview of the focal point group treatment. In add-on, groupparticipants had an option to compose a response the group to be includedin the group informations. Four participants wrote responses, which wereconsidered with the group informations following analysis of the focal point groupdiscussion. Participants were provided with the three co untries of groupdiscussion several yearss prior to the existent focal point group meeting. Theywere non given any waies or counsel sing the optionalwritten responses to the group activity.Data analysis foremost involved dividing and coding group informations. Responsesto the first subject of treatment were divided into three classs: those stand foring a traditional worldview, those stand foring afeminist worldview, and those that did non clearly represent eitherworldview. From these groupings, overall findings sing theworldviews typically experienced by the group participants weresummarised. This was so farther compared with the definitions oftraditional gender functions identified by the group.Datas from the 2nd subject of treatment were besides broken down intothose stand foring a traditional worldview, those stand foring afeminist worldview, and those that did non clearly represent eitherworldview. It was of import to so observe participant perceptual experiences andemotional res ponses to these cryptographies, and in which worldview groupingthey and their households were reported to experience best served andempowered.Datas from the specific treatment sing service were so similarlyanalysed, and combined with old findings to show a image ofthe impact of traditional versus feminist worldviews on societal workpractise, underscoring work with adolescent domestic force subsisters andtheir apprehension of gender functions in society.It was anticipated at the decision of such research, a position could beasserted as to whether feminist position has a important impact onthe practise of societal work as it is presently undertaken and whetherthis impact, if any, leads to improved service.As the focal point group involved a comparatively little figure of participants ( nine sum ) and informations from their interactions were primarilyqualitative in nature, it was decided non to execute any complexstatistical analysis on focal point group informations. It was felt that such typesof analysis would neither uncover findings that could be consideredstatistically important nor supply a more accurate understanding ofthe issues under consideration than a more qualitative analyticalapproach. In consideration of infinite and relevancy parts of thediscussion were used to back up decisions in the findings andanalysis subdivisions of this thesis, whilst an overall drumhead ofthe most relevant parts of the treatment are included in Appendix2. Execution OF PROJECT Nine pupils run intoing the standard laid out in the research planagreed to take part in the focal point group. They were primarilyorganised by one group participant, who had discovered other domesticviolence subsisters through schoolroom treatments and throughparticipation in a survivors’ group in the local community. All ninestudents were presently analyzing societal work or had taken at least onesocial work class as portion of a related class of survey, such aseducation or condemnable justness. There were six adult females and three work forces, runing in age from 19 to 27. Racially, seven wereCaucasian, one was Black, and one was Asiatic. All present as comingfrom upper working category to middle category backgrounds. All hadexperienced domestic force as adolescents, doing their experiencesfairly recent and hence supplying a comparatively current word picture ofsocial work practise. Five pupils ( three adult females, two work forces ) had beenremoved from their biological parents at some point during theirteenage old ages. All had been involved in intercessions into the familyby a societal worker stand foring either a authorities administration, or inthe instance of one adult female, a local church.Some of the participants antecedently knew each other and were somewhataware of each other’s experiences, which should be considered in groupanalysis. Five on a regular basis participated in a survivors’ support group inthe community. One adult male and one adult female were cousins. In add-on, twoof the work forces had known each other as adolescents from intercession throughthe school system.Jennifer, a 24 year-old Caucasian adult female, was chosen to be themoderator, as she had been the 1 who had assisted the research worker byarranging for most of the participants to go involved in thestudy. The group so moved about instantly into treatment of thetopics provided. The group had been provided a whiteboard for its usage, which Jennifer impl emented to organize single remarks and thoughts. It is surmised that the easy mode with which the group undertook thediscussion was based on the fact that they were all pupils andtherefore used to holding survey groups, group treatments, and the similar, and that all of them had at least publically shared their experiencespreviously, either as portion of a schoolroom treatment or survivors’group, or both, and were hence more comfy in prosecuting in suchdiscussion than might be typical for a focal point group covering with suchexperiences. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS The first determination of this research is that the bulk of socialworkers in service or domestic force subsisters to non consistentlyemploy feminist concepts in practise, despite the likeliness ofhaving been exposed to such concepts. This manifested itself inthree important ways. First, households were overpowering dealt withas persons with jobs. That is, the maltreater was described asmaking hapless picks or holding some type of pathological issues that ledto his or her determination to mistreat ( in one participant’s household, bothparents were opprobrious ) . As such, the maltreater was described from apsychoanalytical point of view by the societal worker ( s ) , and his or herbehaviour labelled as separately aberrant.The subsisters of the domestic force state of affairss, peculiarly themothers, as the bulk of maltreaters from the groups’ experiences weremale household members or fellows of the female parent, were besides reported tobe systematically dealt with from an single position. In thissense, their behavior was besides reported to be categorised by thesocial workers involved as unhealthy, pathological, and coming fromsome kind of unsolved personal issues, such as low self-pride. Inthe instance of merely one participant did the societal workers involved ineither intercession or therapy systematically relate the domesticviolence state of affairs to broader issues of subjugation, social powerstructures and the related hegemonic gender functions, or patriarchal normsof society. It is of note that this participant received service froma progressive women-helping-women administration, instead than atraditional government-organised societal work programme.Group participants besides repeatedly described their household situationsas unhealthy, and they surely were, but from the position thatboth the maltreater and abused were responding or exposing emotioninappropriately, instead than that the motive or norming behind thebehaviour was at mistake . For illustration, Trent described his female parent asdrawn to violent, alcoholic work forces. â€Å"She ever seemed to travel for theseguys that didn’t cognize how to show anything except by interrupting material, shouting, striking, you know.† His farther descriptions of his mothers’boyfriends indicated an premise that if these work forces had been raisedwith or taught proper agencies of covering with their defeats andemotions, the maltreatment to him and his female parent would hold been lessened oreliminated. This thought was supported by at least one societal worker, whosuggested reding for Trent, his female parent, and the so boyfriend asone possible manner of turn toing the opprobrious state of affairs.Several participants did convey womens rightist theory and thought into groupdiscussion, indicating out, for illustration, that laterality or aggression bymen in any signifier was unhealthy, and oppugning why it was merely seen asunhealthy by most of the societal workers they had encountered, and byothers they knew in the community, when physical force was actuallyinvolved.There was a related treatment, albeit brief, about the unwillingnessof neighbors, relations, and others in the community, such as membersof the same church, to step in in the domestic force state of affairs. Participants indicated their perceptual experience that whilst this was frequently dueto a fright of acquiring involved or cognizing how to assist the state of affairs, there were repeated happenings in everyone’s experience where anunwillingness to step in derived from others’ deductions that theman of the house had some right to take the manner in which thehousehold operated, or that he had a right to train his married woman /girlfriend and kids as he saw tantrum. Wendy reports hearing an auntstate â€Å"Well, its his household, their childs, she wants to remain with him, †and dismiss the on-going force as therefore an acceptable familyl ifestyle, or at least one in which none of the remainder of the familyshould be expected to step in. Participants so acknowledged thisand several other systemic state of affairss that perpetuated their maltreatment, such as reluctance of authorization figures to go on oppugning wheninitially told nil was incorrect, and involuntariness of constabularies tointervene repeatedly.Similarly, sing gender functions, treatment indicated a belief bymost participants that their societal workers believed a traditionalstereotype of what was appropriate behavior for a adult male and a adult female, andthat these behaviors were different. There were studies of acceptanceof physical response as an appropriate masculine reaction, but thelevel of physical response non being considered appropriate. Maleparticipants were encouraged to speak about their experiences, butreport neer being given permission to show fright, or an emotionalresponse such as shouting. One male participant reported get downing t o cryas portion of a group experience, and being discouraged instead thanencouraged to go on, whilst female members of the group were allowedto and even supported in such emotional look. There were similarreports of assorted hegemonically feminine looks, such as weeping, fright, and fostering behaviors, being supported and encouraged bysocial workers for male household members but non female, every bit good as anacceptance or premise of failing on the portion of grownup females whochose to stay in an opprobrious state of affairs.The treatment so moved to the consequence of traditional and feministperspective on societal work service. Participants overwhelminglyreported experiencing better served when societal workers sought to empowerthem and their households. This did normally affect practise of methodsderived from a feminist position, such as the usage of brooding journalingand support groups, every bit good as encouragement from the societal workers tothe female parent that she c ould, so, survive and prosper outside thedomestic force state of affairs, that she did hold the interior militias toaddress the state of affairs and travel to a healthier life style, and thatsocietal force per unit area to be with a adult male, either as a romantic spouse or asa father / father-figure for kids was non necessary for asuccessful life. Participants besides report experiencing personally empoweredby such encouragement, and hence able to back up their female parents inattempts to go forth relationships.From their ain survey in societal work theory, focal point group participantswere able to briefly discourse the branchings of the patriarchalsocietal power construction on a woman’s determination to remain in a violentsituation. One issue brought up included the perceptual experience that societywill view a adult female as a failure and unwanted if she does non hold aromantic relationship with a adult male in her life. A figure of womenparticipants in the group repo rted experiencing similar force per unit area to maintaina romantic relationship with a adult male in their life, irrespective of theirother committednesss or involvements, and an outlook that they would notbe successful adult females if they did non finally acquire married and havechildren. When questioned by other participants, the three maleparticipants reported non experiencing such force per unit areas. Another issue raisedwas the mothers’ perceptual experience that they needed a male parent figure tosuccessfully raise kids, peculiarly boys. This was perpetuatedin the life experiences of group participants even though the menoccupying these functions were viewed by the male participants asdestructive, instead than constructive, influences. Issues of supportin training kids and pull offing family operations were alsoindicated, as was the fiscal support provided by the batterer. Thegroup indicated all these issues were social, instead than single, and deficiency of address ing of them affected the effectivity of the socialservices they had received.Overall, the participants were by and large positive about at least onesocial worker with whom they had a relationship during their teenageyears. Participants typically felt experiencing most bucked up and bestserved by those societal workers who did non present themselves as beingdistant or above the participants and their households, and who did notoverly underscore their family’s issues from a position of individualdysfunction. These findings indicated that a feminist interactiveconstruct, which avoids â€Å"power over† methods and practise is perceivedto be most effectual by domestic force subsisters. Recommendation It is recommended from findings of this survey that societal workersare foremost provided greater exposure to and preparation in feminist methodsand theory as it relates to their practical, daily practise. Forexample, all participants reported some positive experiences inresponse to reflective methods such as brooding journaling andsurvivor support groups. Considerations of ways to more greatlyinclude such methods in typical practise are hence indicated.Of greater concern are the systems in which societal workers operate. Whilst most of the societal workers in these focal point group participants’experiences had some acquaintance with feminist theory or methods, asindicated by their accent on authorization or usage of specificstrategies, there is something within the government-sponsored socialservices construction that prohibits practise genuinely based on feministtenets. A crisp contrast was provided by the immature adult female served at aprogressive, private service, where womens rightist theory was the obviousframework on which service was based. She was by far the most positiveabout her experiences and workers, and reported penetrations, understandingand authorization to alter non systematically reported by other focusgroup participants.It hence recommended that more research be pursued as to whatfactors constrain societal workers from working from a more feministframework. Issues such as clip ( many societal workers have far morepeople to see and function than they would wish to hold, or frequently feelthey can function efficaciously ) , deficiency of material resources such asappropriate infinite, deficiency of effectual preparation, or disheartenment insuch respects from supervisors or others in power. Specificallyidentifying relevant factors could so organize a model forprogressing with alteration in societal work practise within a typicalgovernment service administration.It is further recommended that single societal workers consider whatconst raints they personally work under, and what restraints they placeupon themselves as a consequence of the greater power constructions of oursociety. Becoming aware of personal prejudice sing traditional genderroles, for illustration, would help the single societal worker inproviding a more empowering and less conscripting environment indealing with those they serve. The participants in the focal point group, for illustration, agreed they were given issues to believe about by the groupinteraction, and that greater consideration of force per unit areas to conform insociety and the false power of males would be points that, throughanalysis, could better their societal work practise. Similarly, going more aware of the far-reaching influences of patriarchyand accepted subjugation of adult females in our society would besides supply afoundation from which societal workers can both educate their clients andmove them and others towards political action to rectify such systemicissues. Decision In decision, whilst womens rightist theory and concepts have made avaluable impact on societal work practise, those being served believethey would be better served by a greater inclusion and trust on suchpractises. Social workers may personally or professionally espousefeminist model, but are less likely to use it in practise. Thisdeprives both them and their clients of the most good service. Social workers need to go more focussed on associating the experiencesof persons to the broader power constructions in our society, anddealing with their experiences in the context of these structuresrather than as single or pathological troubles. Socialworkers, peculiarly in domestic force state of affairss, need to becognisant of the consequence of hegemonic gender functions on perpetuating suchviolence, every bit good as their ain witting or unconscious subscription tosuch functions. In short, feminism has made a valuable impact on socialwork practise, but could still be employed even more ef ficaciously to notonly turn to the jobs of persons, but to work towardseliminating the patriarchal systems of subjugation in our society thatmake state of affairss such as domestic force so common topographic point. Mentions Barns, A. 2003. Social Work, Young Women, and Femininity. Affilia, Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2003, pp. 148-164.Barretti, M. 2001. Social Work, Women, and Feminism: A Review of Social WorkJournals, 1988-1997. Affilia, Vol. 16, No. 3, Fall 2001, pp. 266-294.Bell, P. and MacLeod, J. 1988. Bridging the Gap: Feminist DevelopmentWork in Glasgow. Feminist Review, No. 28, Spring 1988, pp. 136-143.Bem, S.L. 1995. Leveling Gender Polarization and CompulsoryHeterosexuality: Should We Turn the Volume Down or Up? The Journal ofSex Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 329-334.Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge: London.Carlson, B. 1997. A Stress and Coping Approach to Intervention withAbused Women. Family Relations, Vol. 46, No. 3, July 1997, pp. 291-298.Carr, E.S. 2003. Rethinking Empowerment Theory Using a Feminist Lenss: The Importance of Process. Affilia, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 2003, pp.8-20.Cohn, C. , Weber, C. 1999. Missions, Men and Masculinities. Inter national Feminist Journal of Politics, 1999, pp. 460-475.Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Polity Press: Cambridge.Connell, R.W. 1993. Work force and the Women s Movement. Social Policy, Summer 1993, Vol. 23, Issue 4, pp. 72-79.Cott, N.F. 1989. Remark on Karen Offen’s â€Å"Defining Feminism: AComparative Historical Approach.† Signs, Vol. 15, No. 1, Autumn 1989, pp. 203-205.Dietz, C. 2000. Reacting to Oppression and Abuse: A FeministChallenge to Clinical Social Work. Affilia, Vol. 15, No. 3, Fall 2000, pp. 369-389.Dominelli, L. and McLeod, E. 1989. Feminist Social Work. Macmillan Education: London.Hammer, J. and Statham, D. 1999. Womans and societal work: Towards a woman-centered pattern ( 2nd ed. ) . Macmillan: London.Hawkesworth, M. 1997. Confusing Gender. Signs, Vol. 22, No. 3, Spring 1997, pp. 649-685.Marchant, H. 1986. Gender, systems believing and extremist societal work.In H. Marchant and B. Wearing ( Eds. ) , Gender reclaimed: Womans in socialwork, Hale and Irem onger: Sydney, Australia, pp. 14-32.Moylan, P. 2003. Teaching Peace: The Challenge of GenderedAssumptions. Peace and Change, Vol. 28, No. 4, October 2003, pp.570-574.Rabrenovic, G. and Roskos, L. 2001. Introduction: Civil Society, Feminism, and the Gendered Politics of War and Peace. NWSA Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 40-54.Scott, J.W. 1988. Gender and the Politics of History. Columbia University Press, New York.Tickner, A.J. 1999. Why Women Can’t Run the World: InternationalPolitics Harmonizing to Francis Fukuyama. International Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 3–11.