The Feminization of Poverty in the United States

The ‘feminization of poverty’ is currently a phenomenon of great concern to social scientists and social workers.  In the United States, the fastest growing type of family structure is that of female-headed households and, because of the high rate of poverty among these households, their increase is mirrored in the growing number of women and children who are poor; almost half of all the poor in the U.S. today live in families headed by women.  Women have higher poverty rates than do men for two reasons.  First, their economic resources are often less than those of men.  Second, they are more likely to be single parents during their working lives and to be unmarried and living alone in their later years. Poverty is more likely to be a chronic problem among female-householder families. Minority women are highly represented among the poor because of their minority status and a higher risk of single parenthood (Devine, Plunkett, and Wright, 1992). Furthermore, the poverty of women is reflected in the poverty of children.  “There are almost 13 million poor children in the U.S.: 52 percent of them live in families headed by women and the poverty rate for white, black, and Spanish-origin children living in female-headed households is 46 percent, 66 percent, and 71 percent respectively” (Rodger, 1986: 32).  The feminization of poverty is clearly a feminist issue; however, it is also a socialist concern.  The eradication of poverty, which is a Democratic Socialist and Marxian issue, requires a feminist analysis and solution. 

 “The Feminization of poverty” was coined by Diana Pearce to capture a basic contradiction in women’s economic status that emerged between 1960 and 1979.  In spite of increased women’s participation in the labor market, affirmative action programs, and increased entry of women into the professions, the number of female-headed families living below the poverty level increased dramatically while the number of male-headed poor families declined.  By 1970, women headed 48 percent of all poor families, which contrasted sharply with only 23 percent in 1959 (Erie, Rein and Wiget 1983:100).  In addition, because of the increasing number of poor elderly women, the total number of women living below the poverty level jumped in relation to men.  In 1969, 37 percent of the adult poor were women; by 1979, two out of three adults living below the poverty line were women (Stallard, Ehrenrich and Sklar, 1983).

The facts documenting the increasing number of women and children can be found in several recent publications (e.g., Stallard et al., 1983; Sidel, 1986; and Rodger, 1986), all of which have documented the ways in which women are particularly vulnerable to poverty, particularly minority women.  Poverty is being ‘feminized,’ which is clearly expressed in a quote from the President’s National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity (1981):

All other things being equal, if the proportion of the poor in female-householder families were to continue to increase at the same rate as it did from 1976 to 1978, the poverty population would be composed solely of women and their children before the year 2000 (Rodgers, 1986: 7).

 Studies have shown that the causes of women’s poverty are different from the causes of men’s poverty (e.g., Stallard et al., 1983; Sidel, 1986: and Rodger, 1986).  Researchers have focused on factors that are specific to the situation of women in modern society.  As a group, and regardless of class, women are more vulnerable to poverty than men and that, consequently, women’s poverty has different causes than the poverty of men. Below is a statement by Karen Stallard about the difference between women and men’s poverty:

There is a fundamental difference between male and female poverty: for men, poverty is often the consequence of unemployment and a job is generally an effective remedy, while female poverty often exists even when a woman works full-time…….Virtually all women are vulnerable—a divorce or widowhood is all it takes to throw many middle-class women into poverty (Stallard et al., 1983:20).

 To explain the feminization of poverty, we have to invoke some of the things that many women have in common, such as motherhood and low paying jobs. Single motherhood is perhaps the most important determinant of female poverty in the United States (Ehrenriech and Stallard, 1982; Sidel, 1986).  Other predictors of female poverty include unemployment, divorce, loss of higher-paying manufacturing jobs, domestic responsibilities including child and elder care, and lower wages (Ehrenriech and Stallard, 1982). 

According to Scott (1984) women’s poverty has two sources: (a) their unpaid responsibilities for raising children and other family labor and (b) sex discrimination.   In addition, the lack of affordable childcare is a huge detriment.  Approximately one-fifth of unemployed women are jobless due to lack of childcare.

            Low wages, often due to occupational segregation, discrimination, and insufficient work hours, are major contributors to poverty among women.  Females are concentrated in the secondary sector of the labor force, which consists of low-paying jobs. In addition, most newly created jobs are in the lower-paying service sector and are occupied mainly by women (Smith, 1986). 

            As the preceding research indicates, the feminization of poverty is associated with many interrelated structural and ideological variables.  Stallard et al. (1983) sums up the determinant of the feminization of poverty as follows:

It is a direct outgrowth of women’s dual role as unpaid labor in the home and underpaid labor in the work force.  The pace has been quickening by rising rates of divorce and single motherhood, but the course of women’s poverty is determined by the sexism and racism ingrained in an unjust economy (51).

Recent literature has produced not only a detailed description, but also some plausible and obvious explanations of the feminization of poverty.  In addition to these structural economic factors, Sidle (1986) argues that women’s poverty is also the result of ideological and structural constrains peculiar to women.  Women socialized to put family obligations first, to see themselves primarily as wives and mothers, are likely to neglect or overlook the need to develop occupational and educational skills that will help them support themselves if they remain single or their marriage breaks up.  In addition, Women’s domestic activities, in spite of their obvious significance, are devalued and time consuming, and interfere with their full participation in the labor force (Sidel, 1986: 25-35).  Feminists use the term ‘dual role’ to explain the fact that most women must integrate wage work and housework to make a living.  I will now discuss the theoretical approach of Socialist feminism and how it can be used as a tool to explain the feminization of poverty, particularly the connection between the ‘dual role’ of women’s labor and poverty. 

The social problem of women and poverty in general is complex and deeply entrenched in the macro systems of capitalism, patriarchy, ideology and discourse.  Research has revealed that the feminization of poverty is continuing to increase in the United States and is abhorrently evident in third world countries.  According to a report by the Division for the Advancement of Women  (2000) “The majority of the 1.5 billion people living on 1 dollar a day or less are women. Worldwide, women earn an average slightly more than 50 percent of what men earn. In addition, the gap between women and men caught in the cycle of poverty has continued to widen in the past decade” (2).

It is clear that the existing capitalistic system in the United States is not able solve the growing problems of poverty and gender/racial oppression.  Both socialist feminism and structural social work as a critical theory offer an analysis of poverty that not only emphasizes the structural causes of poverty as opposed to blaming the individual, they are inclusive of a diversity of perspectives, and critical of dominant ideologies and power structures.  However, structural social work theory is more informed and cutting edge as it inculcates the jewels of postmodern and modern social theory.  While all theories have their biases and flaws, they both advocate for an alternative social vision consistent with progressive social work values in which life is free of domination.  

Perhaps the most difficult challenge to uniting in social causes is the deeply entrenched system of competition and rampant individualism, which continues to divide and conquer people. In addition, we are so conditioned to buy into the overly “yang” work- a-holism that keeps people so spun out that they don’t have the energy or volition to challenge status quo or be politically engaged.  I am convinced that in order for radical change to occur, it will require both revolution and evolution. Because things are so deeply entrenched and so many people are ignorant of what is truly going on, we need awakened light-workers to work from within the system.  However, we also need visionaries who are working from the margins on a grass roots level as they will be the informed leaders and visionaries working behind the scenes.  Marxists tend to believe that social work must operate outside the existing system or else it will become incorporated into the present social order and end up protecting it rather than changing it (Mullaly, 2007).  This is a good point when one considers how easy it is to get complacent when you are getting a descent paycheck. 

The power elite is not going to just hand over their power.  As a result, people are going to have to wake up and join forces if any social change is going to occur.  Karl Marx was right when he said that the contradictions in capitalism would eventually cause it to self-destruct (Mullaly 2007). We are witnessing its collapse at this very moment in history.  With the middle-class slide occurring we might see enough class conflict to produce a revolution.  We simply haven’t had enough people suffering enough to act as a catalyst to radical revolution, but this will inevitably change in the near future.  

Karl Marx predicted the fall of capitalism in the 1800’s, but he was written off by social theorists who weren’t conscious or smart enough to receive the prophetic vision he revealed to us.  Perhaps one of my favorite quotes by Mullaly is this “Unfortunately, too many social workers and social theorists have dismissed Marxism as an interesting but outdated theory of society and social change.  Nothing could be further from the truth” (2007:142).  There is nothing new under the sun, just more complex versions of social problems that have been occurring for centuries under patriarchy.  Civilizations have come and gone and if we can’t rally to make positive changes, nature will find a compassionate way to put an end to our collective neurosis and suicide mission. A tidal wave is coming with the global aging population and most people don’t even see it coming. If we aren’t able to make effective changes now, it will inevitably be made for us-- and it won’t be pretty.

References:

Butler, Judith. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Collins, Patricia Hill. (1990).  Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Erie, Steven P., Martin Rein, and Barbara Wiget. (1983). Women and the Reagan Revolution: Thermidor for the Social Welfare Economy.  In Families, Politics, and Public Policy, Irene Diamond (ed.) New York: Longman, 100.

Devine, J.A., Plunkett, M., & Wright, J.D. (1992). The Chronocity of Poverty: Evidence from the PSID, 1966-1987. Social Forces, 70, 787-812.

Hartmann, Heidi. (1979).  Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex.  In, Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminist, Zillah Eisensten, (ed.), 206-247.

Mullaly, Bob. (2007).  The New Structural Social Work.  Oxford University Press, Ontario,    Canada.

Rodgers Jr., Harrell R. (1986). Poor Women, Poor Families.  New York: M.E. Sharp.

Scott, H. (1984). Working Your Way to the Bottom: The Feminization of Poverty. Boston: Pandora.

Sidel, Ruth. (1986). Women and Children Lat: The Plight of Poor Women in Affluent America.  New York: Viking.

Smith, J. (1986).  The Paradox of Women’s Poverty: Wage-Earning Women and Economic Transformation. In B.C. Gelpi, N.C.M. Harstock, C.C. Novak, &M.H. Stober (Eds.), Women and Poverty Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 121-140.

Stallard, Karin, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Holly Sklar. (1983). Poverty in the American Dream: Women and Children First. Boston: South End Press.

United Nations Department of Public Information. (2000).  "Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action: Report of the Secretary-General.” Retrieved from: www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/session/presskit/fs1.htm

Williams, Fiona. (1989).  Social Policy: A Critical Introduction: Issues of Race, Gender and Class. New York: Blackwell.

The RISING TIDE OF POVERTY IN AMERICA: ITS TIME TO ADJUST THE POVERTY LINE

 Calculating who is poor is a tricky and complicated affair, despite the good intentions among policymakers to want to improve the well-being of deprived people. The official government data published by the United States Census Bureau shows that, “In 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent, or just over 46.5 million people. The poverty rate is the share of people below the official poverty line. The poverty line was $22,314 for a family of four, $22,113 for a family of four with two children, and $11,344 for a single individual under age 65” (2012: 14).  However, there is a lot of controversy about the accuracy of these numbers, as they are based on an outdated poverty measure that doesn’t include alternative data. Policy efforts to reduce economic poverty may overlook important aspects of what is means to be poor. As Robert Havemen proclaims “these numbers ignore many non-economic considerations that may affect individual well-being, such as living in unsafe surroundings, being socially isolated, or experiencing adverse health or living arrangements not remediable by spending money (2009: 81).

            The current official poverty measure was developed in the early 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, and only a few minor changes have been implemented since it was first adopted in 1965 (us census). In the early 1960’s when she developed her poverty plan, President Johnson had declared a War on Poverty, and the nation needed a statistical representation of the poor. Her economy food plan was a bare minimum food plan designed for temporary use during economically challenging times. It was developed by taking the least expensive food plan developed by the Department of Agriculture and multiplying it by 3.

 According to Kathleen Short of the US Census Bureau “At the time it was developed, the official poverty thresholds represented the cost of a minimum diet multiplied by three (to allow for expenditures on other goods and services). Family resources were defined for this measure as before-tax money income.”

The Income based poverty line is an absolute measure that is adjusted each year only for changes in prices, not for changes in the standard of living.  The benefits to defining poverty in this way is that it keeps the poverty line fixed over a long period of time, which inevitably effects social policy and federal tax policy.  It also keeps the numbers relatively low, which looks good for the politicians in office. However, the absolute income poverty measure excludes a large number of people from receiving social services that they need, particularly women, minorities and children.  In keeping this outdated poverty line, the wealthy are the one’s who gain because they don’t have to pay higher taxes for social services and the poor people loose necessary services they need as a result of structural oppression.

Interestingly enough, the relatively low tax rate of the United States largely accounts for the nation’s skewed income distribution.   And despite the mammoth size of the federal budget of the United States, it is predicated on a tax base that is minimal compared to those of other industrialized nations.  “A tenant of the welfare state has been the progressive taxation of income and its redistribution to the poor through social programs; thus, the question of income distribution has become integral to the discussion of tax policy” (Karger and Stoesz, 2010: 244).  Unfortunately, research has revealed that tax policy has always contained provisions that benefit special interests. “Bending the tax code in response to lobbying is a long-standing practice in the United States, though today it is often associated with corporate influence or corporate welfare”(Karger and Stoesz, 2010: 243).  The Neo Conservatives have made it very clear that they want to completely do away with any kind of social welfare.  And keeping the poverty line lower than it should be keeps the tax rates low in the United States.  

Some attempts have been made to improve the nation’s official poverty measure.  According to Robert Havemen “In 1995, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reported the results of a comprehensive study of the strengths and weaknesses of the official measure, and proposed a major revision designed to correct many of the criticisms that have been levied against it” (2009:82). Since that report, the Census Bureau has developed a variety of improved poverty measures reflecting the recommendations of the 1995 report.  In November 2011 and November 2012, the Census Bureau released the first sets of estimates for the Supplemental Poverty Measure. However, none of these alternatives has been adopted to replace the existing official poverty measure (Census Bureau, 2012).

I would personally modify the absolute income poverty line by using a relative measure of poverty, which increases along with the general standard of living. I would also inculcate a multidimensional approach to poverty that includes hardships that people experience in many dimensions—education, housing, food, social contacts, security, and environmental amenities.  Aside from just measuring income, another measure of affluence that I would include is assets, insofar as they are an indication of real wealth.  Consisting of savings, real estate, stocks and bonds, and related property, assets not only can be liquidated during periods of adversity, thus offering the owner a buffer against poverty. According to Karger and Stoesz “The distribution of assets is even more skewed than income distribution, with the highest quintile owning more than 80 percent. By contrast, the wealth of the lowest quintile is negative, indicative of debt” (2010: 245).

In alignment with the 1995 study by the National Academy of Sciences, I would include all the items the reform proposed, which are so clearly delineated by Robert Haveman’s article “What Does it mean to be poor in a rich society?”:

The reform proposal would involve a new threshold based on budget studies of food, clothing, shelter, and amounts that would allow for other needs to be met, such as household supplies, personal care, and non-work-related transportation.  It would also reflect geographical differences in housing costs.  The income measure would also be reworked to include the value of near-money benefits that are available to buy goods and services (for example, food stamps), and would subtract from income required expenses that cannot be used to buy goods and services (for example, income and payroll taxes, child care and other work-related expenses, child support payments to another household, and out-of-pocket medical care costs, including health insurance premiums) (2009:82).

With the implementation of the new poverty threshold, the national statistics of poverty would go up and more people would qualify for social services. However, the corruption in tax policy favoring special interest groups or corporate welfare has to change.  People are so disillusioned by the corruption of democracy and for good reason.  How are we going to incorporate social change when corporate interests rule the roost?   Furthermore, people are highly disillusioned by the way taxes are used, such as funding wars (supposedly fifty cents out of every dollar goes to military costs. If that much went into social welfare we wouldn't be having the problems that we do).

Year after year, the funding for social services dwindles.  This is perhaps the most inhumane thing we could do to the very people that are the backbone of the capitalistic system.  The system is set up for people to be poor, yet the conservative power elite wants to cut the social services for these people—this is absolutely insane! An assortment of research reveals that although there have been some governmental efforts made to reduce poverty; they are superficial efforts that don’t target the root of the problem, which is unregulated capitalism and corporate greed.  In addition, there are a number of social trends that have changed the landscape of the U.S economy, such as globalization, the middle class slide, increasing populations and the diminishing of natural resources. All of these long-term trends drastically affect the U.S. economy and the global economy as well. 

More importantly, the new poverty threshold would assist more women, minorities and children who represent the majority of the poor. The "feminization of poverty" is currently a phenomenon of great concern to social scientists and social workers.  In the United States, the fastest growing type of family structure is that of female-headed households and, because of the high rate of poverty among these households, their increase is mirrored in the growing number of women and children who are poor; almost half of all the poor in the U.S. today live in families headed by women.  Women have higher poverty rates than do men for two reasons.  First, their economic resources are often less than those of men.  Second, they are more likely to be single parents during their working lives and to be unmarried and living alone in their later years. Minority women are highly represented among the poor because of their minority status and a higher risk of single parenthood (Devine, Plunkett, and Wright, 1992). Furthermore, the poverty of women is reflected in the poverty of children.  “There are almost 13 million poor children in the U.S.: 52 percent of them live in families headed by women and the poverty rate for white, black, and Spanish-origin children living in female-headed households is 46 percent, 66 percent, and 71 percent respectively” (Rodger, 1986: 32). 

With the growing number of poor people and dwindling of social welfare, we are headed for a major social crisis, and that doesn’t include the environmental crisis looming over our heads as a result of global capitalism. Chris Farrell wrote an excellent article titled “War on Poverty: From the Great Society to the Great Recession” (American Radio Works, 2014). He discusses some of these social trends and social policies that have contributed to the rising tide of poor people, such as global competition, the decline of private sector unions, rapid technological change and the deregulation of finance, the working poor, and low minimum wages for less educated, low- skilled workers.  His article is realistic and bleak, but it is right on target.  He ends with a quote that describes our current economic, social and environmental crisis in a nut shell:

There are public policies that would improve the job prospects for poor people. But there’s little appetite to initiate or expand anti-poverty programs and probably won’t be anytime soon.  American politics is likely to be defined in the new term by rising alarm over the increasing federal deficit and mammoth government debt. Meanwhile, state and local governments are slashing their support for the poor.  If the government can’t help, the economy will end up doing the heavy lifting by default. But so far the economy is generating little job and income growth, and even when it does come back, low-skilled workers are likely to be left behind. The risk is that the tragic combination of joblessness and poverty will lead to diminished dream and social isolation which in turn, will feed a cycle of unemployment and destructive behavior.  It’s morally and economically wrong.

The war on poverty will never be a war if people are fed a bunch of faulty statistics, which cause them to believe that poverty isn’t a macro, social epidemic.   It is clear that band-aid solutions simply aren’t working anymore, particularly in a time of global crisis. The costs of social welfare are far less than the price paid for globalization in the name of corporate greed.  Unfortunately, the karmic fall out as a result of “profits over people” is causing a massive global dark night of the soul that will inevitably cause even more suffering. The wisdom that will emerge from this death is more equality, cooperation, compassion and tolerance of diversity. 

We need a massive radical humanitarian movement—a new structural social work that transforms society from the inside out.  It is not going to come from any politicians. On the contrary, it will come from the people waking up to the lies that they have been fed by policy makers and greedy capitalists. According to one of my social work heroes, Bob Mullaly, social work ideology has much more in common with the socialist paradigms than it does with the capitalist paradigms (2007). Mullaly writes “If social workers truly believe in the values and ideas they espouse, then they cannot subscribe to and try to maintain a social order that contradicts and violates these same values and ideals (2007: 206).  The time is now for social workers to unite for change.  We simply can’t sit on our laurels anymore; we must do everything that we can to speak out for social change. 

References:

Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica C. Smith. (2013). Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States. United States Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.

Devine, J.A., Plunkett, M., & Wright, J.D. (1992). The Chronocity of Poverty: Evidence from the PSID, 1966-1987. Social Forces, 70, 787-812.

Farrell, Chris (2014). "War on Poverty: From the Great Society to the Great Recession." American Radio Works, Public Radio: http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/feaatures/poverty/rising_tide.html

Haveman, Robert. (2009). "What Does it Mean to be Poor in a Rich Society?" Focus, Vol.26, No.2, Fall.

Karger, Howard, Stoesz, David. (2010). American Social Welfare Policy: A Pluralist Approach. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Mishel Lawrence, Bivens Josh, Gould Elise, Shierholz Heidi. (2012). The State Of Working America, 12th Edition. Cornell University Press, New York.

Mullaly, Bob. (2007). The New Structural Social Work.  Oxford University Press, Ontario,    Canada.

Short, Kathleen. (2011). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: Examining the Incidence and Depth of Poverty in the U.S. Taking Account of Taxes and Transfers in 2011. The United States Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, Washington, D.C.

Rodgers Jr., Harrell R. (1986). Poor Women, Poor Families.  New York: M.E. Sharp.

The Primordial Sacred Union in Psychology, Religion and Mythology

The concept of the primordial sacred union has come to us by way of world religions, especially in elements of Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, as well as in the Platonic traditions of the West.  An assortment of disciplines has also attempted to conceptualize this symbiotic union. The writing of Carl Jung is filled with examples from myth and culture that point to the importance and value of recognizing the qualities of the primordial sacred union within each individual and the world at large. Humanity was meant to be modeled after this divine union, but has somehow fallen away or become severed from its original wholeness, and has digressed into the imperfect world we see all around us. 

In his book, Man and His Symbols, Carl Jung proposed that, in addition to our immediate, personal consciousness, there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature, which is identical in all individuals. He referred to this as the collective unconscious, which does not develop individually but is inherited. The contents of the collective unconscious, Jung argued, manifest themselves in the form of symbolic images, or archetypes, representing the primordial events that shaped human history.  These archetypal images, which include such symbols as the mother and father, the warrior, the seeker, the sage and the child, are common to all people.  Jung's theory of the feminine principle as a universal archetype, a primordial, instinctual pattern of behavior deeply imprinted on the human psyche, has assisted humanity in its ability to both understand and ground the concept of the Goddess as existing within both the individual and collective psyches.  In this sense, archetypal symbolism of the primordial sacred union is an international form of communication because it bypasses the barriers of language, race and culture.  It is perhaps the most effective form in which sacred concepts can be given expression.

Carl Jung's studies of alchemy, Taoism, and the work of new paradigm scientists led him to become one of the first modern male scientists to value the feminine in equal measure to the masculine.  His concept of wholeness, the goal of the process of individuation, included the integration of the masculine and feminine principles.  He recognized the feminine as the source of receptivity and relatedness, and called for its integration into a Western culture that had gone too far in development of the rational, the materialistic, and the masculine. 

Jung proposed that the primordial sacred union, otherwise referred to by him as "androgyny,"is a universal archetype inherent in the collective unconscious and similar to the sacred marriage.  Humanity was supposed to be modeled after this divine image of Creator/Creatrix, but somehow mankind fell away from and was severed from the original wholeness. While this sacred union is as old as creation itself, we have come to know about it through traces left in myths and the sacred traditions of many indigenous peoples. Jung proposed that androgyny, which refers to the anima (feminine) and animus (masculine) aspects within a single human being, regardless of sex, may be the oldest archetype inherent in the human psyche.  Both are present within every human psyche, regardless of physical gender.  In other words, there are masculine and feminine qualities in both men and women. 

Jung believed that the anima (feminine) and animus (masculine) had to be in balance before a person could achieve psychological individuation, or psychic wholeness.  Thus, women, at some point in their individuation process, need to integrate within themselves the masculine qualities, such as assertiveness and objectivity, in order to become whole persons.  Conversely, men need to integrate the feminine qualities that reside within their psyches, such as compassion and non-resistance or passivity, in order to become psychically whole.  Jung was not proposing that men become women.  On the contrary, Jung believed that in order to bridge the gap between male and female, we needed to be able to empathize with the opposite sex.  The movement towards becoming androgynous persons implies a radical change in human consciousness and different styles of human behavior than what has been deemed normal.  It demands that we resist traditional sex role stereotypes and the forms of sexual identity that force men and women into exploiting their differences rather than working together in equality and interdependence. 

The concept of androgyny also proposes new ways of thinking about sexual identity.  Rather than viewing sexual identity as only male and female, androgyny proposes that we begin to view sexual identity as existing on a continuum, which includes recognition of the multitude of sexual permutations that exist in the gray area, such as gays, lesbians and bisexuals.  Biologist and feminist Anne Fausto-Sterling wrote a brilliant book titled Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, which challenges the notion that there always has been and can forevermore only be two human sexes; male and female.  With examples drawn from daily life and from history, sociology, biology and anthropology, Fausto-Sterling demonstrates that these dualisms are neither natural nor cultural universals, but arise from our society's insistence on seeing people that way.  If sexual identity indeed exists on a continuum, and male and female are universal energies, then it makes sense that there is an enormous gray area that has been severely denied in our culture.  After reading this book and gaining an understanding of the universal archetype of androgyny, my sense of male versus female was radically changed. I began to understand why some women I know exude more masculine than feminine qualities, and conversely, why some men appear more feminine than masculine. 

In addition to individual, personal experience, the concept of androgyny demands a meeting of the opposites in our external, socio-cultural environment as well.  Jung proposed that once we have learned to recognize and accept the seemingly contradictory aspects within ourselves, it naturally follows that we need to extend this attitude of mutual interdependence to the wider human community.  Change and wholeness happens from the inside out; therefore, we cannot expect to have equality in the external, socio-cultural environment until each individual first works on becoming integrated within his/herself. The power of the individual to change the world is a profound concept if, and only if, one is committed to her/his personal and spiritual growth.  Too often people try to save the world when in fact what they really need to be doing is examining their own false beliefs and internal imbalances.  Jesus said that a person must first remove the log from his own eye before he can see clearly to remove the splinter from his brother’s eye. 

Author and Jungian psychologist June Singer explains in her book, Androgyny: The Opposites Within,19 that all cultures around the world have collectively attempted to conceptualize the beginning of creation, and each one of them has pointed to the primordial sacred union that existed long before creation. Creation mythology has existed wherever people have questioned their origins. It is in the nature of humans to wonder about the unknown and search for answers.  Since the beginning of time we have tried to imagine what it might have been like before anything had come into existence, yet the language tends to vary from culture to culture.   Science too has focused on understanding what happened seconds before the Big Bang.

Despite being separated by geographical barriers, Carl Jung and his protégé's discovered that many cultures have developed creation myths with the same basic elements. June Singer, for example, noted that one of the commonalities is the belief that in the beginning there was a dark void. Chaos is the potency that exists in the void. No entities of any kind were in awareness, and then, in some mysterious way, some bright spark emerged out of nothingness. Within that spark were energies that would eventually be distinguishable as opposites, separating then into the masculine and feminine principles. In the old myths, the idea of this divine union stems from the belief that in the beginning there was a primordial unity, “the eternal one” in which all the opposites are contained. In other words, the "One" ultimately transcends gender.  It can be defined as the genderless One which contains the Two; namely, the male and the female. At some point in time the primordial unity is broken open and separated into two opposite energies. Those polarities are expressed in an assortment of ways; for example, light and dark, positive and negative, hot and cold, mind and body, art and science, war and peace, peace and strife.  Through the conflict and harmony of these two energies, the original, elemental creative force was born—The Primordial Sacred. 

Copy of Bodhissatvas of Compassion: The Heart of the Mother

Every heart is connected to the Great One Heart.  It is from this source of love that all things exists.  It is from this heart of hearts that we are unconditionally loved, nourished and redeemed. As we enter into a suffering world, God 's heart shares in our pain and suffering.   For Gods pain is the greatest of all pains and it is because of his/her pain, that we have been granted the gift of compassion, grace and forgiveness. The Great One Heart is the source of all loving compassion, which comes through all creation as an intense surge of loving kindness, patience and forgiveness.  The Hebrew word for “compassion” is derived from the word for “womb.”  God is the primal matrix, the Great One from which all beings are born.

         While it is impossible for us to grasp the immense love of the Great One Heart, each one of us is connected to it and experience on a very tangible level the immense love pulsating through our veins. This heart connection to Love is in fact our very life line or umbilical cord so to speak.   This doesn't mean that all humans acknowledge God as the ground of their being, or are capable of receiving God's unconditional and unwavering love.  If, by our own free will we decide to cultivate and understand the compassion of the Great One heart, we must first learn to receive Spirit's love, which requires a certain degree of surrender or a death of the ego.  For it is only when we surrender to the Beloved in our brokenness and pain that the Great One Heart can then fill our cups with unconditional love and forgiveness.  It has been said that one can't have compassion for others until they first have compassion for themselves.   It is because of Great Spirits compassion for us, that we can extend compassion to others. 

         When one has been transformed and melted like butter by the love of the Great heart, they can then choose to become a vessel of this love and commit their lives to assisting those who are still suffering, or, those who have bought into the illusion or Maya.  They might choose to become what Christians call stewards of God's love or what Buddhists call a Bodhisattva of compassion, a being (satva) committed to liberation (bodhi).  This kinship with the suffering of others is the discovery of our soft spot, the discovery of Bodhichitta or Mercy.  Bodhichitta is a Sanskrit word that means “noble or awakened heart.”  It is said to be present in all beings. If this is the case, everything that exists in creation does so because of Chi's compassion.  This love is so great that it moves us to explore what it means to live a compassionate life as a humble admirer of the Tao.

         For most humans,  the practice of compassion is easier said than done, simply because it goes against the grain of the ego, which is self serving and dog-eat-dog by nature.  Most people like to think of themselves as compassionate, but it is rare that one actually walks their talk and lives an obedient life of compassionate service to others.  If  one chooses to hold compassion as a priority in their life, they will inevitably be required to walk a steep path simply because it goes against the grain of competition and social hierarchies.  Furthermore, the cultivation of compassion stems from a deep, sense of devotion or longing to know the Beloved, which isn't reinforced in cultures that champion science over religion or spirituality.  In our legalistic societies, we have been conditioned to believe that there is little incentive in the human world to cultivate compassion because it might make us too soft and therefore more likely to be eaten alive by those whose hearts have grown hard.  Yet, in fact, the very opposite is true.  What we fail to see is that compassion is stronger than fear and ego because it awakens us to Oneness.  In embracing human suffering and healing our hearts, compassion breaks down walls and unites all of humanity in the Great One Heart.  It is the gateway to our spiritual evolution as a human race.   For it is the true Utopia that we all seek.

         Compassion is not a natural phenomena simply because suffering is not something we desire, on the contrary, it is something we want to avoid at all costs. It is a call that goes against the grain; that turns us completely around and requires a total conversion of heart and mind.   Why would one want to open their heart when the world will just break it over and over again?  In the midst of so much human suffering, one might assume that it would be easier to shut one's heart down and not have any expectations of hope for the future at all.  Yet, in our heart of hearts, we all know that a world without compassion would be a living hell, a human wasteland, and therefore, some of us decide to take up the cross and uphold God's grace amidst great suffering and despair.  We do this for one reason and one reason only, because it is the very core of our being, it is the greatest blessing any of us could ever ask for.

         Those who choose to cultivate compassion in their lives soon come to learn of the spiritual riches in the Great One Heart, which makes the  false riches of the socially constructed, egoistic material world look like plastic, disposable toys.  Furthermore, they know that implementing compassion means setting healthy boundaries that don't allow others to manipulate or control them.  When one learns to love themselves, they become more aware of the ways in which those who are still suffering blame and project their sense of hopelessness onto others.  Having compassion for oneself means saying “no” to a lot of unhealthy patterns that bombard us on a day to day basis.  It means having the courage to stay in our integrity, to uphold the sword of truth and allow it to cut away the dysfunction and disease in our belief systems that are keeping us imprisoned and disempowered.   When one comes from a place of compassion, they are holding up an ancient light of truth that has been revered throughout history and can never be destroyed.   It is the truth that we are One in the Great Matrix on Consciousness.  It is the truth that each one of us is a reflection of the Ultimate Reality.  This is the core message of the Bodhisattva and the central message of Jesus's teachings and so many other teachers of compassion.  Their teachings are designed to awaken each person to their Divine Self and direct connection to Source. 

         Jesus came to realize that he and God were one.  However, in this realization, he came to an even greater realization, which made him equal with all of humanity.  Jesus never elevated himself above others, on the contrary, it was humanity who put him on a pedastool—one that would be very destructive to our spiritual evolution.  A Monk by the name of John Martin Sahajananda wrote in a book titled, You Are the Light: Rediscovering the Eastern Jesus, that “The realization of Jesus' Divine Self as God would have been incomplete had he not also realized that the real self of every human being also is God, or the light of the world. He called upon his followers and the whole of humanity to “realize that the light is buried within each one of us.  He told people that they were the “salt of the earth” but that they had lost this consciousness with the consequence that the earth had lost its meaning and purpose. 

The path of the bodhisattva is indeed a radical call, a call that goes to the roots of our being.   Those who choose to implement compassion in their lives are the weavers and the mendors, the bridge builders and the integrators, the diplomats and the nurturers.   They work in the trenches of our communities in an assortment of vocations such as counselors, social workers, maids, trash collectors, caregivers, mothers, fathers, teachers, children, nurses, artists, construction workers and farmers.  They are those who have embraced their own grief and experienced the redemptive power of God's unconditional love.  They are the salt of the earth, the light houses in the storm that  guide us back to our Divine Self.  They are the true educators of spirit, totally perfect in their imperfection because hey have been touched by the healing powers of Grace.   There one wish s to awaken all soul's to the power within themselves.  However, they know that God gave us free will and therefore, one can't force another human to seek the Great One Heart.  They are the only one's who can reconstruct the missing link.  As the saying goes, “One can lead a horse to water, but they can't make them drink.”

         It is because of the Great One Heart, that the Bodhisattva's of compassion come as humble admirers, grateful and joyous, for they know deep in their hearts that Love is Victorious and that we have a lot to look forward to.  They also know that they have an immense amount of healing work to do, for the illusion of Maya is much like a weed that wants to strangle out the Truth of humanity. The Bodhisattva is quite aware of the social injustices in the world and are deeply pained by them  all, just as God is pained by it all.  However, rather than run from the places of poverty and despair, which most people tend to do, they go directly too these places.  Most of them choose to serve without recognition, blue ribbons and purple hearts.  They have chosen the difficult task of opening and healing their hearts so that they can then assist in healing what is broken on larger levels.  They don't expect recognition because they know that those who are still suffering are experiencing a spiritual void—a starvation of the soul-- and therefore aren't coming from a place of gratitude.   Most of them work in humble servitude and know their human limitations.  They don't expect to save the world, this is too heavy of a burden for one to carry.  However, it is their hope that they can  assist in the raising of human consciousness, even if it means working with just a few individuals in their life time.   For awakening others to their Divine Self is the most powerful source of social change.  In this sense, they are radical agents of social change.  And while they are the very glue of humanity, most bodhisattva s will never be featured on the cover of a magazine for their humanitarian deeds.  In keeping their eyes on God, they know where their true source of recognition comes from. 

Copy of Artists Reclaim the Body of Earth and Mother

 It is time for both women and men to create a new vision for society--one that is in harmony with the life on the planet as a whole. 

As the patriarchal structure and military warriors threaten to destroy the Earth and her beings, we are being called to awaken to the wisdom of the sacred feminine, to have the courage to embrace our own denials on a personal level so that we will be better equipped to heal the reflection of self-hatred in nature.  We can no longer sit back and watch in silence as the military industrial complex wreaks havoc on the immune system of the Earth and on its inhabitants.  We need awakened individuals to take action in any way that they can to protest war based on greed and exploitation of women and minorities.  As Ynestra King so powerfully put it, "War is the violence against women in all its forms... rape, battering, economic exploitation and intimidation––and it is the racist violence against indigenous peoples here in the U.S. and around the world, and it is the violence against the Earth."  It is this same attitude of heartless arrogance that denies women the right to their own bodies and sexuality, and which depends on multiple systems of domination and fear tactics to have its way.  This is the time of women--healers, teachers, nurses, artists, visionaries, mothers--to grow in confidence and power, to reclaim their right to have a voice in all aspects of life, from politics to spirituality, and to the arts.

I am horrified that six of my closest women friends and several more acquaintances have been raped, molested and/or physically abused by men. We know that twenty-five percent of all women in this culture are raped within their lifetimes, and another nineteen percent have to fend off rape attempts.  We know that as many as forty four million American women have been molested by relatives, with twelve million of those molested by their fathers.  Furthermore, increasing numbers of women, particularly single moms, are in poverty despite the fact that they work more hours per week than men. There continues to be a severe income gap between men and women as well as a lack of women in positions of power and authority.   Despite the groundswell of women's actions for peace, women still lack power and authority when it comes to peace negotiations. Those sitting around the peace table are almost exclusively men. Furthermore, a number of recent studies have shown that depression is high amongst women, and is more common in working-class women than in middle-class women.  With all the suffering that women have to endure on a day-to-day basis, it is no wonder we suffer from high levels of anxiety and depression.  And to top it all off, some men have the audacity to turn around and place judgment on women for being passive, dependant and insecure. 

It is because of the ground breaking work of an assortment of feminist thealogians, eco-feminists, feminist artists and other cultural creatives in an assortment of disciplines that women now have more opportunities to become fully empowered, autonomous and confident in their voices. Not only have feminists revealed a history where knowledge has been controlled by a white, male, eurocentric perspective, or “androcentric bias” that has excluded the viewpoints of women and minorities; they have also exposed a history of tyranny in which patriarchy, power, knowledge and discourse have all been linked together, creating a complex system of justification for social inequality. 

They have exposed a lack of sacred imagery of the Goddess in the West and how that lack has justified and maintained gender inequality and disrespect of the Earth and her animals.  Imaging the divine as female is essential for the larger vision of emancipation and equality because it not only empowers women but also gives them a sense of hope that they will be freed from the destructive impact of our culture’s pervasive negative imaging of the female. As Carole Christ, a pioneer of the women's spirituality movement informs us, "The real importance of the symbol of the Goddess is that it breaks the power of the patriarchal symbol of God as male over the psyche." Therefore, it is through symbolic imaging in the arts that we will be able to take the first steps in our efforts to bring about social change.   

At this crucial time in human history, the Great Mother is revealing herself to all cultures, including the West.  We in the West simply have yet to acknowledge her presence as much as other cultures, and as a result have tended to neglect the thousands of images of the Goddess created by artisans in the United States.  While this is a complex problem that has been occurring for quite some time, it is partly due to the censorship of Goddess images by the majority of galleries, museums and various media outlets.   This trend of censorship is the result of a multitude of factors and an overall lack of awareness, but it is slowly beginning to improve as alternative routes are carved out by visionary artists and and cultural creatives in an assortment of disciplines.  More often then not, powerful gatekeepers in the art world aren't as tuned-in to new movements in art as they think they are.  It is the artists and mystics who are the true visionaries, inspiring a sense of hope as they midwife the birthing of a new mode of consciousness--the death of the old beliefs, values and limited perceptions of God that are no longer working for us, and a rebirth into a new paradigm of consciousness that is more aligned with the diversity of creation, the Earth and animals.

As a human race we are slowly beginning to awaken to the fatalism of the dominant scientific worldview that has not only denied our need for spirituality, but also stripped us of our deep connection to the Earth.   We are beginning to see how a coalition between Judeo-Christianity, patriarchy and science has been an enormous source of social control, and that much of this control stems from fear--fear of the unknown, but most of all, fear of the feminine principle.  It is this propagation of fear that is perpetuating a sense of apathy, anger and hopelessness in humanity.  Without a sense of hope for the future, the brave souls who challenged mediocrity and the status quo in the past would not have had the courage to fight for justice as they did.  Whenever I feel scared about the state of the world today, I recall the work of several female artists in the 1970’s who committed their lives to creating images of the Divine Goddess.  I also draw inspiration and courage from the extended history of female mystics from numerous disciplines constituting a long matrilineage of women who, through powerful mystical visions and divine revelations, acquired the authority to challenge the sexism and misogyny of their own patriarchal societies and religions.  Many of these women put themselves at great risk as they swam against the current of mainstream culture.  Not only were they severely marginalized by society and told that they were crazy, many of them also experienced grave poverty, psychological torture and even death as a result of their selfless vision for social justice.

Feminization of Poverty in the United States

The ‘feminization of poverty’ is currently a phenomenon of great concern to social scientists and social workers.  In the United States, the fastest growing type of family structure is that of female-headed households and, because of the high rate of poverty among these households, their increase is mirrored in the growing number of women and children who are poor; almost half of all the poor in the U.S. today live in families headed by women.  Women have higher poverty rates than do men for two reasons.  First, their economic resources are often less than those of men.  Second, they are more likely to be single parents during their working lives and to be unmarried and living alone in their later years. Poverty is more likely to be a chronic problem among female-householder families. Minority women are highly represented among the poor because of their minority status and a higher risk of single parenthood (Devine, Plunkett, and Wright, 1992). Furthermore, the poverty of women is reflected in the poverty of children.  “There are almost 13 million poor children in the U.S.: 52 percent of them live in families headed by women and the poverty rate for white, black, and Spanish-origin children living in female-headed households is 46 percent, 66 percent, and 71 percent respectively” (Rodger, 1986: 32).  The feminization of poverty is clearly a feminist issue; however, it is also a socialist concern.  The eradication of poverty, which is a Democratic Socialist and Marxian issue, requires a feminist analysis and solution. 

 “The Feminization of poverty” was coined by Diana Pearce to capture a basic contradiction in women’s economic status that emerged between 1960 and 1979.  In spite of increased women’s participation in the labor market, affirmative action programs, and increased entry of women into the professions, the number of female-headed families living below the poverty level increased dramatically while the number of male-headed poor families declined.  By 1970, women headed 48 percent of all poor families, which contrasted sharply with only 23 percent in 1959 (Erie, Rein and Wiget 1983:100).  In addition, because of the increasing number of poor elderly women, the total number of women living below the poverty level jumped in relation to men.  In 1969, 37 percent of the adult poor were women; by 1979, two out of three adults living below the poverty line were women (Stallard, Ehrenrich and Sklar, 1983).

The facts documenting the increasing number of women and children can be found in several recent publications (e.g., Stallard et al., 1983; Sidel, 1986; and Rodger, 1986), all of which have documented the ways in which women are particularly vulnerable to poverty, particularly minority women.  Poverty is being ‘feminized,’ which is clearly expressed in a quote from the President’s National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity (1981):

All other things being equal, if the proportion of the poor in female-householder families were to continue to increase at the same rate as it did from 1976 to 1978, the poverty population would be composed solely of women and their children before the year 2000 (Rodgers, 1986: 7).

 Studies have shown that the causes of women’s poverty are different from the causes of men’s poverty (e.g., Stallard et al., 1983; Sidel, 1986: and Rodger, 1986).  Researchers have focused on factors that are specific to the situation of women in modern society.  As a group, and regardless of class, women are more vulnerable to poverty than men and that, consequently, women’s poverty has different causes than the poverty of men. Below is a statement by Karen Stallard about the difference between women and men’s poverty:

There is a fundamental difference between male and female poverty: for men, poverty is often the consequence of unemployment and a job is generally an effective remedy, while female poverty often exists even when a woman works full-time…….Virtually all women are vulnerable—a divorce or widowhood is all it takes to throw many middle-class women into poverty (Stallard et al., 1983:20).

 To explain the feminization of poverty, we have to invoke some of the things that many women have in common, such as motherhood and low paying jobs. Single motherhood is perhaps the most important determinant of female poverty in the United States (Ehrenriech and Stallard, 1982; Sidel, 1986).  Other predictors of female poverty include unemployment, divorce, loss of higher-paying manufacturing jobs, domestic responsibilities including child and elder care, and lower wages (Ehrenriech and Stallard, 1982). 

According to Scott (1984) women’s poverty has two sources: (a) their unpaid responsibilities for raising children and other family labor and (b) sex discrimination.   In addition, the lack of affordable childcare is a huge detriment.  Approximately one-fifth of unemployed women are jobless due to lack of childcare.

            Low wages, often due to occupational segregation, discrimination, and insufficient work hours, are major contributors to poverty among women.  Females are concentrated in the secondary sector of the labor force, which consists of low-paying jobs. In addition, most newly created jobs are in the lower-paying service sector and are occupied mainly by women (Smith, 1986). 

            As the preceding research indicates, the feminization of poverty is associated with many interrelated structural and ideological variables.  Stallard et al. (1983) sums up the determinant of the feminization of poverty as follows:

It is a direct outgrowth of women’s dual role as unpaid labor in the home and underpaid labor in the work force.  The pace has been quickening by rising rates of divorce and single motherhood, but the course of women’s poverty is determined by the sexism and racism ingrained in an unjust economy (51).

Recent literature has produced not only a detailed description, but also some plausible and obvious explanations of the feminization of poverty.  In addition to these structural economic factors, Sidle (1986) argues that women’s poverty is also the result of ideological and structural constrains peculiar to women.  Women socialized to put family obligations first, to see themselves primarily as wives and mothers, are likely to neglect or overlook the need to develop occupational and educational skills that will help them support themselves if they remain single or their marriage breaks up.  In addition, Women’s domestic activities, in spite of their obvious significance, are devalued and time consuming, and interfere with their full participation in the labor force (Sidel, 1986: 25-35).  Feminists use the term ‘dual role’ to explain the fact that most women must integrate wage work and housework to make a living.  I will now discuss the theoretical approach of Socialist feminism and how it can be used as a tool to explain the feminization of poverty, particularly the connection between the ‘dual role’ of women’s labor and poverty. 

The social problem of women and poverty in general is complex and deeply entrenched in the macro systems of capitalism, patriarchy, ideology and discourse.  Research has revealed that the feminization of poverty is continuing to increase in the United States and is abhorrently evident in third world countries.  According to a report by the Division for the Advancement of Women  (2000) “The majority of the 1.5 billion people living on 1 dollar a day or less are women. Worldwide, women earn an average slightly more than 50 percent of what men earn. In addition, the gap between women and men caught in the cycle of poverty has continued to widen in the past decade” (2).

It is clear that the existing capitalistic system in the United States is not able solve the growing problems of poverty and gender/racial oppression.  Both socialist feminism and structural social work as a critical theory offer an analysis of poverty that not only emphasizes the structural causes of poverty as opposed to blaming the individual, they are inclusive of a diversity of perspectives, and critical of dominant ideologies and power structures.  However, structural social work theory is more informed and cutting edge as it inculcates the jewels of postmodern and modern social theory.  While all theories have their biases and flaws, they both advocate for an alternative social vision consistent with progressive social work values in which life is free of domination.  

Perhaps the most difficult challenge to uniting in social causes is the deeply entrenched system of competition and rampant individualism, which continues to divide and conquer people. In addition, we are so conditioned to buy into the overly “yang” work- a-holism that keeps people so spun out that they don’t have the energy or volition to challenge status quo or be politically engaged.  I am convinced that in order for radical change to occur, it will require both revolution and evolution. Because things are so deeply entrenched and so many people are ignorant of what is truly going on, we need awakened light-workers to work from within the system.  However, we also need visionaries who are working from the margins on a grass roots level as they will be the informed leaders and visionaries working behind the scenes.  Marxists tend to believe that social work must operate outside the existing system or else it will become incorporated into the present social order and end up protecting it rather than changing it (Mullaly, 2007).  This is a good point when one considers how easy it is to get complacent when you are getting a descent paycheck. 

The power elite is not going to just hand over their power.  As a result, people are going to have to wake up and join forces if any social change is going to occur.  Karl Marx was right when he said that the contradictions in capitalism would eventually cause it to self-destruct (Mullaly 2007). We are witnessing its collapse at this very moment in history.  With the middle-class slide occurring we might see enough class conflict to produce a revolution.  We simply haven’t had enough people suffering enough to act as a catalyst to radical revolution, but this will inevitably change in the near future.  

Karl Marx predicted the fall of capitalism in the 1800’s, but he was written off by social theorists who weren’t conscious or smart enough to receive the prophetic vision he revealed to us.  Perhaps one of my favorite quotes by Mullaly is this “Unfortunately, too many social workers and social theorists have dismissed Marxism as an interesting but outdated theory of society and social change.  Nothing could be further from the truth” (2007:142).  There is nothing new under the sun, just more complex versions of social problems that have been occurring for centuries under patriarchy.  Civilizations have come and gone and if we can’t rally to make positive changes, nature will find a compassionate way to put an end to our collective neurosis and suicide mission. A tidal wave is coming with the global aging population and most people don’t even see it coming. If we aren’t able to make effective changes now, it will inevitably be made for us-- and it won’t be pretty.

References:

Butler, Judith. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Collins, Patricia Hill. (1990).  Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Erie, Steven P., Martin Rein, and Barbara Wiget. (1983). Women and the Reagan Revolution: Thermidor for the Social Welfare Economy.  In Families, Politics, and Public Policy, Irene Diamond (ed.) New York: Longman, 100.

Devine, J.A., Plunkett, M., & Wright, J.D. (1992). The Chronocity of Poverty: Evidence from the PSID, 1966-1987. Social Forces, 70, 787-812.

Hartmann, Heidi. (1979).  Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex.  In, Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminist, Zillah Eisensten, (ed.), 206-247.

Mullaly, Bob. (2007).  The New Structural Social Work.  Oxford University Press, Ontario,    Canada.

Rodgers Jr., Harrell R. (1986). Poor Women, Poor Families.  New York: M.E. Sharp.

Scott, H. (1984). Working Your Way to the Bottom: The Feminization of Poverty. Boston: Pandora.

Sidel, Ruth. (1986). Women and Children Lat: The Plight of Poor Women in Affluent America.  New York: Viking.

Smith, J. (1986).  The Paradox of Women’s Poverty: Wage-Earning Women and Economic Transformation. In B.C. Gelpi, N.C.M. Harstock, C.C. Novak, &M.H. Stober (Eds.), Women and Poverty Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 121-140.

Stallard, Karin, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Holly Sklar. (1983). Poverty in the American Dream: Women and Children First. Boston: South End Press.

United Nations Department of Public Information. (2000).  "Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action: Report of the Secretary-General.” Retrieved from: www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/session/presskit/fs1.htm

Williams, Fiona. (1989).  Social Policy: A Critical Introduction: Issues of Race, Gender and Class. New York: Blackwell.

Feminine Mysticism and the Herstory of Goddess Art "

Feminine Mysticism and The Hestory of Goddess Art

The core intention and mission of Feminine Mysticism in Art stems from the heart of feminine mysticism--a deep passion to experience the feminine face of God through various levels of awareness--physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. While some of these experiences have occurred through religious institutions, most occurred through a direct, spiritual experience. They are mysterious, immanent experiences that originated in the heart of the individual as they were engaged in various creative endeavors. They give us a glimpse of the transcendent mystery beyond this universe and present us with more reality and truth than we ordinarily experience in everyday life.

To better clarify what I mean by feminine mysticism, I am referring to a spiritual movement devoted to the re-enchantment of the feminine principal or the feminine side of God. Mysticism is meditation, prayer, creativity or theology focused on the direct experience of union with divinity, God, or Ultimate Reality. This unity with the Divine is the heart of all mysticism's. It is awareness of nonduality and nonseparation, of no distance between ourselves, the ultimate mystery, and all other beings. Feminine mysticism a spiritual journey for women, as well as for men, which has been lost to many Westerners but is beginning to resurface in various ways. The great treasures associated with feminine mysticism are a part of a universal mystical tradition, and our evolution as a humans species depends on our willingness to not only integrate these knowledge's into our own experience as spiritual beings, but honor them gifts from the Divine.

If we examine the history of Goddess art, we find a number of mystics and artists who have made it their life’s mission to reveal the wisdom's' of the Goddess. For example, the feminist art movement in the 1970’s in many respects paved the way for contemporary female mystics and goddess artists, as they challenged the dominant patriarchal ideologies of Western culture. An important aspect of the feminist art movement in the 1970’s was to challenge the dominant patriarchal ideologies of Judeo-Christianity, particularly its overall subjugation of the feminine principle. As feminist and art historian Gloria Orenstein noted in her article, Recovering Her Story: Feminist Artists Reclaim the Great Goddess, the reclamation of the Goddess is situated at the heart of the second wave of the feminist movement (1970’s to the present) as well as within the newly developed field of women’s studies scholarship (Broude and Garrard, 1994).

Several feminist artists of the 1970’s, such as Ana Mendieta, Mary Beth Edelson, Donna Henes, Betye Saar, AfraShe Asungi, Monica Sjoo, Judy Chicago, Betsy Damon and so many others attempted to reclaim the ancient Great Goddess through images, rituals, and performance art in an effort to reestablish a female perspective that has long been absent in world religions. While there is no doubt feminist artists of the 1970’s were revolutionary and did an enormous amount of work for social equality, Gloria Orenstein reminds us that their work was largely influenced and inspired by a historical background of a powerful tradition of women mystics, heretics, and visionaries.

In her article on Goddess Art, Orenstein reveals that the “Goddess Awakening” in the 1970's was inspired by an assortment of cutting edge research in the social sciences, particularly feminism, psychology, sociology and archeology. Two of the more influential voices of the seventies were archeological scholars and historians Marija Gimbutas, who wrote “The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to 3500 B.C., Myths, Legends and Cult Images, and Merlin Stone, author of “When God was a Woman.” The work of these two female scholars documented an assortment of archeological images from pre-patriarchal Goddess civilizations which indicate that Goddess worshipping civilizations did indeed exist and that art is a potent transmitter of not only concealed knowledge, but truths that were omitted from the patriarchal record of western history (Orenstein, 1994).

One of the fascinating discoveries about our past is that for millennia, prehistoric societies worshipped the Goddess of nature and spirituality, our great Mother, the giver of life and creator of all. These discoveries also exposed us to a nature-based or “pagan” religion that honored the female and revered the earth as sacred. In these early societies the world was viewed as the Great Mother, a living entity who in both her temporal and spiritual manifestations creates and nurtures all forms of life. We also know that in these highly creative societies women held important social positions as priestesses, craftspeople, and elders of matrilineal clans.

Gloria Orenstein also points out that the reclamation of the Goddess art in the 1970’s was, to a large extent, inspired by the rediscovery of Carl Jung’s concept of the archetype of the Great Goddess. The word “archetype” was freely used in those days, and it had been taken from Erich Neumann’s discussion of Jungian ideas about the archetype of the Great Goddess in his book “The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype.” Jungian psychology had purported that the Great Mother represents the feminine in the human psyche, and that archetypes are internal images that exist in the collective unconscious and are at work in the psyche everywhere (Orenstein, 1994).

Many artists and scholars came to believe that the archetype of the Great Goddess is not only equally accessible to anyone, anywhere, but the images inspired or created transcend all patriarchal cultural barriers. As Orenstein noted, “Goddess art of the 1970’s was perceived to be the one symbol that could transcend difference, diversity, and division, and that could harmonize women from a wide variety of backgrounds on a level that penetrated so deeply into human history and the collective psyche that the contemporary patriarchal political and social constructions separating women from each other would be overcome” (1994:175). In other words, through the rekindling of the Great Goddess, women from all over the world could begin to unite their wills and break the chains of social inequality and oppression.

The most concrete evidence we have that recounts the demise of the Goddess cultures can be found in the archeological record. Marija Gimbutas's archeological studies have given the highest scientific authority to our knowledge of ancient Goddess civilizations. Her book, originally published in 1974 with the title The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to 3500 B.C., Myths Legends and Cult Images,30 provided a full iconographic lexicon of pre-patriarchal images and symbols.

By examining the surviving historical evidence, it has been ascertained that God was conceived of as female for at least the first 200,000 years of human life on earth, a far longer reign than that of the patriarchy. Archeological, mythological and historical evidence all reveal that for thousands of years matriarchal religions and patriarchal societies existed simultaneously in Old Europe, and that over a long period of time matriarchal or “pagan” religions were the victims of centuries of persecution and suppression by warlike patriarchal societies, usually referred to as Indo-Europeans, which imposed their male-dominated hierarchy and the worship of their sky gods on Goddess cultures wherever they settled.

Gimbutas summed up the difference between the two cultural systems: "The first was matrifocal, sedentary, peaceful, art-loving, earth and sea-bound; the second was patrifocal, mobile, warlike, ideologically sky oriented, and indifferent to art."31 Continuing waves of suppression by Indo-European culture eventually put an end to the Old European Goddess cultures roughly between 4300 and 2800 B.C., changing it from matrilineal to patrilineal. As a result of continual suppression, the Goddess religions went underground or were assimilated into Indo-European culture, but the old European sacred images and symbols were never totally eradicated. "Many of these symbols are still present as images in our art and literature, powerful motifs in our myths, and archetypes in our dreams."32

While there is speculation as to whether matrifocal societies were truly egalitarian, Gimbutas as well as an assortment of other archeologists profess that they were. Supposedly no archaeological, historical, or anthropological evidence can be found for any widespread female dominant cultures in which males were oppressed. Gimbutas suggests that Old European culture was "matrifocal"--that is, woman-centered--and matrilineal, where descent was through the mother. However, it's important to note that woman-centered does not imply a matriarchy that is the opposite of patriarchy, a society in which one gender exercised power at the expense of the other. As Gimbutas notes, "The Goddess-centered art, with its striking absence of images of warfare and male domination, reflects a social order in which women as heads of clans or queen-priestesses played a central part." 33

Archeologist Merlin Stone, in her book When God was a Woman,34 explains that studies of indigenous cultures over the last few centuries have led to the realization that some indigenous peoples did not yet possess the understanding of the relationship between sex and conception. Thus, the concepts of paternity and fatherhood would not yet have been understood. Though probably accompanied by various mythical explanations, babies were simply born from women. If this were the case, the mother would have been seen as the singular parent of her family, the lone producer of the next generation. There are a number of theories and lines of evidence that speculate as to whether or not matrilineal cultures were indeed egalitarian. However, if this theory is indeed correct, one might be led to assume that in putting the Goddess on a pedestal as the creator of life, men could have been reduced to mere protectors of her preemptive powers.

The historical shift from matrifocal cultures to patriarchal cultures is, in my opinion, one of the most fascinating shifts in human history. While the transformation is fascinating and worthy of investigation, it is perhaps better left to more academic endeavors. There are a number of indigenous peoples, feminist thealogians, mystics, artists and scholars who have already made enormous contributions to the women's spirituality movement, ecological movement and the inter-spirituality movement. It is not our intention to repeat what has already been said, but rather, explore on deeper levels the meaning of feminine mysticism and how it has been expressed through various modes of knowing, particularly through art and creativity.

New Book Release: Feminine Mysticism in Art

Beloved Community!

We are so grateful for your support and feedback regarding Feminine Mysticism in Art. In a culture of materialism and useless plastic gadgets, why not support Gaia's mission with the raising of consciousness on the planet?

If you are wanting to use your $$ in a socially redeeming way, purchase the gift that keeps on GIVING HER FEMININE WISDOMS on a daily basis.

The book is getting excellent reviews on Amazon. We are blessed and honored to have readers say it is an "Opus Magnum" and "Masterpiece Work".

The kindle E-Book is currently on sale for $7.99 from $20.00. And the gorgeous soft cover is $39.99 reduced from $39.99. You can also purchase the SHOW GIRL hardcover for $79.99.

People who have purchased the book has been very happy with the quality of print for the soft cover and hard cover.

If you have been wanting this book now is your chance to get a super deal. And we need help with Amazon reviews, as well.

Please take some time and visit my author page on Amazon and consider purchasing this gorgeous 435 page, full color art book.

And if you want to see who all the contributing artists and writers are with links to their websites, visit our website at: www.mysticspiritart.com

We are also proud to announce that Gloria Orenstein wrote the forward for our book.


About the Book:

There is a growing awareness that we are doomed as a species and planet unless we have a radical shift in consciousness and the re-emergence of the Goddess is becoming the symbol and metaphor for this transformation. Feminine Mysticism in Art fills the void of Goddess imagery and wisdom in the West by providing images and writings offered by 65 contemporary visionary artists and writers who have committed their life's work to the re-birth of the Divine Feminine in the West. This book contains deep feminine wisdom's that have the potential to be the medicine for individual and collective healing.

Some of the male and female visionary artists are: AfraShe Asungi, Yasmin Hernandez, Martina Hoffmann, Autumn Skye Morrison, Penny Slinger, Hrana Janto, Heather Taylor, Mark Henson, Abba Yahudah, David Joaquin, Andrew Annenberg, Paul Heussenstamm, etc. Some of the visionary writers are: Anne Baring, Margaret Starbird, Vicki Noble, Llewellyn Vaughn Lee, Lotus, Sandra Ingerman, Hank Wesselman, Anyaa McAndrew, Martina Ball, and so many more. It is an EPIC co-creative effort by powerful voices in the Women's Spirituality movement, the Inter-Spirituality movement, the Transcendental Art movement, and the Ecological movement.

Purchase the Book on Amazon

REVIEWS FMA IS GETTING ON AMAZON:

At this time when women's voices and their creative art is essential to the return of the Divine Feminine in our consciousness, Feminine Mysticism in Art is the flagship. It is the first time so many incredible, powerful images are available in one book along with important narratives to help us understand the many facets of feminine experience. For anyone who desires to further the momentum, purchasing this book and spreading the word about it will be an important contribution to all. Linda Savage PhD

This gorgeous read is an exquisite teacher of what is desperately needed for our societal ecosystems to truly balance and heal. Victoria and contributors take a deep dive into the treasure chest of history's soul and bring to the surface the lost language of our powerful Feminine.
I will return to this gem again and again as both inspiration and reference guide. What a masterpiece!
Suzanne Mathis McQueen, author and moon wise teacher

"A beautiful book at a very important time in our history.
It makes a great coffee table piece with its exquisite and large renditions, but I recommend it goes in your library or on your nightstand. Its insights and wisdom about the feminine principles, if implemented in the minutest of ways in our daily lives, would be a big step in the right direction for making our world a better place." Kent Schoch, musican and writer

Endorsements:

"Art, in its highest form, is direct connection with divine source. Art communicates to our soul beyond words and concepts, and can transmit Universal Truth. Feminine Mysticism in Art beautifully shares vast collections of the art of our times, expressing the power and presence of the Divine Feminine and Primordial Sacred Union. I found this book to be an important and timely spiritual and political resource, that shares deeply the empowerment of the feminine, during these evolutionary times."

Andrew Harvey, Founder and Director of the Institute of Sacred Activism,

"The mystical feminine has a vital part to play in the present work of global healing and transformation. Feminine Mysticism in Art awakens us to HER central role. These images and mystical writings speak directly to the soul, reminding us of her eternal presence, her power, and beauty."

Llewellyn Vaughn-Lee, Ph.D, Sufi teacher, author of numerous books on the Divine Feminine

"This exquisite book of astonishing and often haunting images of the Divine Feminine and Sacred Union created by contemporary artists will encourage us to embrace a new reality--that an exclusively masculine image of the Divine is not, and can never be, whole without HER."

Margaret Starbird, M.A, author of "The Woman With The Alabaster Jar."

About the Editors:

Victoria Christian is the head editor of Feminine Mysticism in Art. She is also a contributing artists and writer as she had to "weave" the creative visions of over 65 contributors. Raised in the quaint town of Ashland, Victoria Christian was blessed to grow up in the emerald forests of Southern Oregon, learning as much as she could about the Gaian rhythms of life.

Victoria graduated from Southern Oregon University with a Bachelors of Science in 1996, majoring in Sociology. In 2011, she graduated from Northern Arizona University with a Masters in Applied Sociology, emphasis in Social Theory, Sociology of Art, and Sociology of Gender. She did her thesis research on Women Artists and Identity Formation in a Postmodern Society, which is a major critique of culture and the art world. What emerged from her qualitative research was a developmental model of artistic identity development, which revealed the stages that most women go through in their identification process as an artist. She is in the process of compiling this rich research into a book as it has the potential to empower women artists in a rationally and scientifically oriented culture that is in some ways antithetical to creative development.

Victoria started a second piece of research in 2002 on Feminine Mysticism in Art, which led to the creation of the book FMA. Upon interviewing several mystical artists (male and female), she discovered that most of them were extremely talented, but felt marginalized by the traditional gallery scene simply because their work was "too spiritual," "to political" and "too feminist." As a result, all of the artists felt it was necessary to harness their mission and "publish the map" in order to get their images into the world without compromising their spiritual, political, and visionary voices. The book evolved over 12 years and includes the creative visions of over 65 emerging and established visionary writers and artists.

In 2009, Victoria produced an animated visionary art DVD titled Feminine Mysticism in Art: Artists Envisioning the Divine, which has been featured at various music/art festivals, theatrical performances and spiritual conferences across the globe. You can purchase the animated DVD of visionary art and music on Amazon. To view the trailer, see the website: www.mysticspiritart.com.

In 2015, Victoria received a second Masters degree in Social Work through Portland State University and has been working in the trenches as a home health medical social worker helping to empower physically disabled and financially oppressed people through counseling and access to community resources and mentors. Victoria has a counseling and life coaching practice called Guanyin Healing Arts. For more information about her therapeutic modalities and counseling philosophy, see her website: www.guanyinhealingarts.com

Susan Stedman is an assistant editor to FMA. She is a court reporter, editor, tarot/astrology counselor and the creator of oral histories documenting the lives of elderly people for future generations. She has raised three daughters, including Victoria Christian, and had many diverse life experiences that have contributed to her wisdom and ability to work with people, including her upbringing as the daughter of a prominent theologian and minister. She draws not only on her own rich history as a preacher's kid and single mom, but also as an anthropology student at Southern Oregon University, freelance editor, and twenty years as a freelance court reporter. Susan is a respected member of the Grandmother's Council in Southern Oregon and has devoted her life to pursuing acts of compassion in her local community. She reads prodigiously and is devoted to a spiritual walk. She and her husband currently reside in Southern Oregon.

Purchase the animated DVD HERE

  Infinite Blessings,

Victoria Christian, MA, MSW
Therapist, Sociologist, Writer, Artist, Sacred Activist
electrart@hotmail.com

Book Website:
www.mysticspiritart.com

Counseling website:
www.guanyinhealingarts.com

Healing Heart Studio:
www.victoriachristian.com

    

Bodhissatvas of Compassion: The Heart of the Mother

Every heart is connected to the Great One Heart.  It is from this source of love that all things exists.  It is from this heart of hearts that we are unconditionally loved, nourished and redeemed. As we enter into a suffering world, God 's heart shares in our pain and suffering.   For Gods pain is the greatest of all pains and it is because of his/her pain, that we have been granted the gift of compassion, grace and forgiveness. The Great One Heart is the source of all loving compassion, which comes through all creation as an intense surge of loving kindness, patience and forgiveness.  The Hebrew word for “compassion” is derived from the word for “womb.”  God is the primal matrix, the Great One from which all beings are born.

         While it is impossible for us to grasp the immense love of the Great One Heart, each one of us is connected to it and experience on a very tangible level the immense love pulsating through our veins. This heart connection to Love is in fact our very life line or umbilical cord so to speak.   This doesn't mean that all humans acknowledge God as the ground of their being, or are capable of receiving God's unconditional and unwavering love.  If, by our own free will we decide to cultivate and understand the compassion of the Great One heart, we must first learn to receive Spirit's love, which requires a certain degree of surrender or a death of the ego.  For it is only when we surrender to the Beloved in our brokenness and pain that the Great One Heart can then fill our cups with unconditional love and forgiveness.  It has been said that one can't have compassion for others until they first have compassion for themselves.   It is because of Great Spirits compassion for us, that we can extend compassion to others. 

         When one has been transformed and melted like butter by the love of the Great heart, they can then choose to become a vessel of this love and commit their lives to assisting those who are still suffering, or, those who have bought into the illusion or Maya.  They might choose to become what Christians call stewards of God's love or what Buddhists call a Bodhisattva of compassion, a being (satva) committed to liberation (bodhi).  This kinship with the suffering of others is the discovery of our soft spot, the discovery of Bodhichitta or Mercy.  Bodhichitta is a Sanskrit word that means “noble or awakened heart.”  It is said to be present in all beings. If this is the case, everything that exists in creation does so because of Chi's compassion.  This love is so great that it moves us to explore what it means to live a compassionate life as a humble admirer of the Tao.

         For most humans,  the practice of compassion is easier said than done, simply because it goes against the grain of the ego, which is self serving and dog-eat-dog by nature.  Most people like to think of themselves as compassionate, but it is rare that one actually walks their talk and lives an obedient life of compassionate service to others.  If  one chooses to hold compassion as a priority in their life, they will inevitably be required to walk a steep path simply because it goes against the grain of competition and social hierarchies.  Furthermore, the cultivation of compassion stems from a deep, sense of devotion or longing to know the Beloved, which isn't reinforced in cultures that champion science over religion or spirituality.  In our legalistic societies, we have been conditioned to believe that there is little incentive in the human world to cultivate compassion because it might make us too soft and therefore more likely to be eaten alive by those whose hearts have grown hard.  Yet, in fact, the very opposite is true.  What we fail to see is that compassion is stronger than fear and ego because it awakens us to Oneness.  In embracing human suffering and healing our hearts, compassion breaks down walls and unites all of humanity in the Great One Heart.  It is the gateway to our spiritual evolution as a human race.   For it is the true Utopia that we all seek.

         Compassion is not a natural phenomena simply because suffering is not something we desire, on the contrary, it is something we want to avoid at all costs. It is a call that goes against the grain; that turns us completely around and requires a total conversion of heart and mind.   Why would one want to open their heart when the world will just break it over and over again?  In the midst of so much human suffering, one might assume that it would be easier to shut one's heart down and not have any expectations of hope for the future at all.  Yet, in our heart of hearts, we all know that a world without compassion would be a living hell, a human wasteland, and therefore, some of us decide to take up the cross and uphold God's grace amidst great suffering and despair.  We do this for one reason and one reason only, because it is the very core of our being, it is the greatest blessing any of us could ever ask for.

         Those who choose to cultivate compassion in their lives soon come to learn of the spiritual riches in the Great One Heart, which makes the  false riches of the socially constructed, egoistic material world look like plastic, disposable toys.  Furthermore, they know that implementing compassion means setting healthy boundaries that don't allow others to manipulate or control them.  When one learns to love themselves, they become more aware of the ways in which those who are still suffering blame and project their sense of hopelessness onto others.  Having compassion for oneself means saying “no” to a lot of unhealthy patterns that bombard us on a day to day basis.  It means having the courage to stay in our integrity, to uphold the sword of truth and allow it to cut away the dysfunction and disease in our belief systems that are keeping us imprisoned and disempowered.   When one comes from a place of compassion, they are holding up an ancient light of truth that has been revered throughout history and can never be destroyed.   It is the truth that we are One in the Great Matrix on Consciousness.  It is the truth that each one of us is a reflection of the Ultimate Reality.  This is the core message of the Bodhisattva and the central message of Jesus's teachings and so many other teachers of compassion.  Their teachings are designed to awaken each person to their Divine Self and direct connection to Source. 

         Jesus came to realize that he and God were one.  However, in this realization, he came to an even greater realization, which made him equal with all of humanity.  Jesus never elevated himself above others, on the contrary, it was humanity who put him on a pedastool—one that would be very destructive to our spiritual evolution.  A Monk by the name of John Martin Sahajananda wrote in a book titled, You Are the Light: Rediscovering the Eastern Jesus, that “The realization of Jesus' Divine Self as God would have been incomplete had he not also realized that the real self of every human being also is God, or the light of the world. He called upon his followers and the whole of humanity to “realize that the light is buried within each one of us.  He told people that they were the “salt of the earth” but that they had lost this consciousness with the consequence that the earth had lost its meaning and purpose. 

The path of the bodhisattva is indeed a radical call, a call that goes to the roots of our being.   Those who choose to implement compassion in their lives are the weavers and the mendors, the bridge builders and the integrators, the diplomats and the nurturers.   They work in the trenches of our communities in an assortment of vocations such as counselors, social workers, maids, trash collectors, caregivers, mothers, fathers, teachers, children, nurses, artists, construction workers and farmers.  They are those who have embraced their own grief and experienced the redemptive power of God's unconditional love.  They are the salt of the earth, the light houses in the storm that  guide us back to our Divine Self.  They are the true educators of spirit, totally perfect in their imperfection because hey have been touched by the healing powers of Grace.   There one wish s to awaken all soul's to the power within themselves.  However, they know that God gave us free will and therefore, one can't force another human to seek the Great One Heart.  They are the only one's who can reconstruct the missing link.  As the saying goes, “One can lead a horse to water, but they can't make them drink.”

         It is because of the Great One Heart, that the Bodhisattva's of compassion come as humble admirers, grateful and joyous, for they know deep in their hearts that Love is Victorious and that we have a lot to look forward to.  They also know that they have an immense amount of healing work to do, for the illusion of Maya is much like a weed that wants to strangle out the Truth of humanity. The Bodhisattva is quite aware of the social injustices in the world and are deeply pained by them  all, just as God is pained by it all.  However, rather than run from the places of poverty and despair, which most people tend to do, they go directly too these places.  Most of them choose to serve without recognition, blue ribbons and purple hearts.  They have chosen the difficult task of opening and healing their hearts so that they can then assist in healing what is broken on larger levels.  They don't expect recognition because they know that those who are still suffering are experiencing a spiritual void—a starvation of the soul-- and therefore aren't coming from a place of gratitude.   Most of them work in humble servitude and know their human limitations.  They don't expect to save the world, this is too heavy of a burden for one to carry.  However, it is their hope that they can  assist in the raising of human consciousness, even if it means working with just a few individuals in their life time.   For awakening others to their Divine Self is the most powerful source of social change.  In this sense, they are radical agents of social change.  And while they are the very glue of humanity, most bodhisattva s will never be featured on the cover of a magazine for their humanitarian deeds.  In keeping their eyes on God, they know where their true source of recognition comes from.