Violence doesn't discriminate; neither should assistance

Domestic violence doesn't discriminate.  Fortunately, neither does Bradley Angle.

Despite the common perception that only straight women and their children are victims of domestic and sexual violence, it affects people of all income levels, races, gender and gender identity, ages and sexual orientation.  Yes, it's true.  Straight men and members of the GLBT community and their children are also victimized and need help.

Here's where Bradley Angle comes in.  They offer "safety, empowerment, healing and hope" to everyone, no judgement, no discrimination.

This is where you come in, because they can't do it alone.  You can help members of our community escaping violent relationships by supporting Bradley Angle.  Donate and/or volunteer and/or help spread the word.

Or, if you like wine, shoes or games of chance, plan to attend their Wine Women & Shoes event.*

*It may be Wine Women & Shoes, but they want the men there, too.

I want you

Hey, you guys, guess what ... I've signed on for another tour of duty with the American Cancer Society Relay For Life of Portland.  You know what that means ... I want you to sign on for another tour, too.

This year, R4L of PDX has been chosen by the American Cancer Society to be a registration site for the CPS-3 study and I'm going to help promote it - recruit volunteers to sign people up during the Relay on July 21 and recruit volunteers to participate in the study.

What I want from you:
1.  Volunteer to "work the tent" and register participants in the study,
and/or
2.  Be part of history by participating in the study,
and/or
3.  Spread the word.  Join my promotion efforts and generate buzz about CPS-3.  Encourage everyone you know that is eligible to saunter on down to Willamette Park July 21 between 3 and 7:00pm and get engaged in the anti-cancer cause.

What is CPS-3?
Great question.  I'm glad you asked.  It's a long-term study that will help researchers better identify the lifestyle, environmental, and genetic factors that cause or prevent cancer.

The American Cancer Society's Epidemiology Research Program is inviting men and women between the ages of 30 and 65 years who have no personal history of cancer to join this historic research study. The ultimate goal is to enroll at least 300,000 adults from various racial/ethnic backgrounds from across the U.S.

This is epic people.  Seriously.  And I want you to be part of the epic-ocity with me.

Too squeamish to offer up your blood? No time to volunteer? Consider cash and make a donation.

The City of Portland hates me and wants me to move away

... okay, so not me specifically, but they definitely have no interest in making the city more livable for me and my demographic.

I've loved Portland unconditionally for so long, but in an all too common story, she seems only interested in taking and not giving.  Pre-hubs, pre-baby, everything was going along so well, but now that I'm asking for a little sumthin' sumthin' in return (navigable sidewalks, enforced crosswalks, a water bill that doesn't suck my child's college fund dry), she's turned on me.

Point 1: The previously protested coerced composting.  I have yet to hear a viable solution to the diaper problem (although, B is convinced M will be potty trained by 14 months).

Point 2: My water/sewer bill doubled while the units used remained the same.  Whoa.  Portland is becoming a  city where people below a certain economic level are not wanted.

Point 3: They feel no need for crosswalks.  To walk the mile from our house to the library and park (something we do often), we must cross a heavily driven street with no marked crosswalk for a three+ mile stretch.  Usually, we stand there with the stroller for about five minutes as cars, trucks, soccer mom mini vans, TriMet buses and police cars whiz by, ignoring us.  B is convinced the US transit system is designed to discourage pedestrians and argues we cannot teach M safe practices of crossing the road, because there are none.  I used to wonder why kids didn't hop on their bikes and ride to the library or park. Now I know.  It isn't safe ... not for stranger danger issues, but because they can't safely cross a road.  So unless the park is on the same block where you live, you're outta luck.

Point 4: Similarly, sidewalks need not be maintained, according to the City.  We have a great stroller, but most of the sidewalks in our area are cracked and full of horsts and grabens, maxing out what a stroller is meant to handle.  Only about 50% of our neighborhood sidewalks have ramps at the curbs.  B has developed a sort of "launch the baby" system to ride rough shod over it all, but it freaks me out.

Point 5: Lack of career opportunity.  A Masters degree and eight years experience in that field (six years at one organization with national recognition for development & execution of initiatives) earns you a job delivering sandwiches for a deli in Portland. Unless you are in the wind energy field or up for the risk of opening a food cart, Portland leadership isn't working in your favor.  I don't have stats on it, but my personal experience frames Portland as the field team for Seattle and San Francisco.  People want to live here, but for professional opportunity, they need to move.  SEA and SFO businesses seem ready, willing and able to scoop up Portland's underemployed talent.  Portland seems even worse when it comes to opportunities for women, although this extends to Oregon in general.  Time and again, we hear move here and I'll hire you in a second.

For years, I gave.  I paid taxes, I volunteered, I patronized businesses.  And I bragged.  Boy, did I brag about how wonderful Portland was.  Now I feel like I gave of myself, my time, my loyalty foolishly.  Portland pretended we had a mutually beneficial relationship, but when I sought a little in return, nothing was there.

Fortunately for me, I/we are wanted in other places, other cities.  They may not be my first love, but I'm optimistic I'll find true love ... and love in return.

Brand You

... or "What my dad taught me about marketing".

I remember my dad once telling my older sister when she was about 12, "if everybody likes you, you're doing something wrong".  He was talking to both of us, but directed this comment to her after she said she was friends with everyone at school.

First, Daina is one of the most genuinely kind people I've ever known, so I'm fairly certain everyone did like her. And if they didn't, it said more about them than her.

Second, his point has stuck with me and remained a driving core value the rest of my life (despite it not applying well to 12-year-old Daina).  If you're being true to yourself and your value system, there will be people who don't agree with you ... some won't like you even.  However, by bending to the popular opinion of the moment, you will inevitably compromise yourself ... and maybe you will stop liking you.

Too often marketers craft a message that attempts to appeal to everyone, but consequently ends up appealing to no one.  It's Marketing 101 - know your target market.  Do your homework.  Discover who values what you offer - who you are.  Find their need, solve their problem.  Go where they are.  Use the language they speak.

Don't compromise yourself, your ideas, your innovations, your services to appease the masses.  If you do, you dilute what you have to offer and end up not appealing to anyone.

Better is in the eye of the beholder

B made the assertion last night that, between the US and Oz, Australia has the better democracy.  This isn't new; we have similar discussions often.  However, our different voting systems prompted the recent round.  He argued their law requiring every citizen show up to vote results in truly engaging everyone in the political decision-making process.

I countered with the argument that by requiring everyone to vote you end up with people uninformed and uninterested in the political process choosing at random how to cast their vote.  At least the ~50% of US citizens who vote have (in theory) informed themselves and they're making deliberate choices.

Also, it doesn't feel very democratic to force people to vote.  Shouldn't the choice to not vote be present in a democracy.

B countered my later argument by saying they just have to show up.  Once you're in the voting booth, what you do with your ballot is up to you ... you can eat it and no one can stop you.

We went on like this for a while ... point-counterpoint ... until I put the queen in the mix.

Of course, I had to bring up the Queen.  I mean, how can their democracy be better if (in theory) Queen Elizabeth II can come and take control back any ol' time she feels like it?  She could decree every Australian citizen must own a Corgi and voila ... Corgis for everyone.

But I digress.  Point being, what do you think?  Is it more democratic to require citizens to vote or more democratic to allow citizens to make that choice for themselves?

No interest in Pinterest

As a Mar/Com professional, I spend a significant amount of time engaged in conversations on social media platforms.  Some I love (Twitter serves up a rich source of information in a clear, concise way), some I hate (I've quit Foursquare twice, but they keep reeling me in. I. Don't. Know. Why.), some I'm still on the fence about (Google+ ... plus plus plus. Is there an echo in here?), however most I continue to review and refine and employ best practices as I learn or uncover them.  I manage two company blogs and one personal one; one company Twitter account and one personal one; two Facebook pages and one personal one; two LinkedIn company pages and one personal one; one YouTube channel; and two Google+ pages and one personal one.  There are more, but those are the ones I contribute to multiple times per week.

As each new platform emerges, I either dabble or dive in to determine if it offers me a viable medium for telling my company's story, engaging my company's market in conversation and/or creates value for my team.

Pinterest has me shaking my head.  Seriously people, what do you see in this?  It's like all the stuff that annoys me about Facebook all lumped together.  I asked our HR Manager (her office is next to mine) and she loves it.  I asked a part-time member of our customer service team (her cubicle is outside my office door) and she loves it, too.  Apparently, they learned how to make a sock bun from Pinterest.

I'm not crafty or a scrapbooker, so maybe that's the problem.  Or maybe I don't like shopping enough.  Or, maybe my appreciation for cupcakes isn't high enough to elevate them to the balloon animal of the pastry world.

I've decided to cast a questioning net wider than than talking distance of my office.  I thought Twitter sounded ridiculous the first time I heard about it.  Andy Van Oostrum had just taken the role of AMA Programs Chair and Russ and I met up with him at Powell's coffee shop to discuss our plans for the coming year of PD workshops.  Andy checked his phone, then told us why.  I was skeptical, but followed the activity to watch for opportunities that complimented my marketing plans.  Soon after, Russ and I organized a PD workshop featuring the people from Pollinate and the convinced me to give it a whirl.  I've been a fan since.

If you "get it" and think I need to too, please enlighten me.  Otherwise, I see no viable B2B application and will move on to tackle what's next.

And I shall never know what a sock bun is.

Everything's different and nothing's changed

The exclusion of women from the recent Congressional hearings on requiring religious institutions to provide their employees with health insurance that offers some benefit for birth control reminded me of my Communications/Journalism thesis.  Everything's different since 1960 and nothing's changed.

For my senior thesis, I completed an extensive analysis of the framing of the "Pill" debate by two prominent news magazines in the years leading up to its legalization in the US in 1960 by combing through all the articles they published on the subject.  One magazine tended toward a conservative slant and the other a liberal slant.

After my research, I concluded both magazines supported approval of the Pill, but for very different reasons.  The Newsweek articles emphasized the value that reliable birth control would have on the quality of a married woman's overall health by preventing a high number of pregnancies in quick succession.  The U.S. News and World Report articles took a more Malthusianian approach and supported the idea of poor married women using the Pill to prevent overpopulation by the lower classes.  Both endorsed the idea of doctors only prescribing the drug to married women.

The voice of women was conspicuously absent in the conversation.  The doctors interviewed were men.  The government agents and members of Congress quoted were men.  The religious leaders featured were men.  Even when asking the opinion of lay people how they felt about legalization of the Pill, only one woman was mentioned.  The lone speaker for all women was a "pretty young brunette wife" (I'm picturing Mary Tyler Moore circa The Dick Van Dyke Show) waiting in her doctor's office.  Not only were men better equipped to discuss women's health, they also knew best when it came to ethics, science, metaphysics and faith.

In addition to the Newsweek and USN&WR articles, I read other periodicals.  From the New York Times to Playboy, Show to the medical journals the messengers remained male.

I remember as I read all the articles written in the late 50s thinking how much the US had changed ... how different it is for women now.

And it is different.  It really is.  And yet, in an odd, unexpected (to me) way, nothing's changed and that realization has left me gobsmacked.