Gender & Society http://gas.sagepub.

com/

Sociologists for Women in Society: A Feminist Bureaucracy?: SWS Presidential Address

Patricia Yancey Martin Gender & Society 2013 27: 281 originally published online 22 March 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0891243213481263 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gas.sagepub.com/content/27/3/281

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Sociologists for Women in Society

Additional services and information for Gender & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - May 16, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 22, 2013 What is This?
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

SOCIOLOGIsTs FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY: A FEMINIsT BUREaUCRaCY? SWS Presidential Address

PATRICIA YANCEY MARTIN Florida State University
Keywords:  feminist organizations; feminism; bureaucracy; strategic tensions; decisionmaking

Feminist organizations have been central to my feminist activism and sociological scholarship for three decades. From the time in the 1980s when I served as president of the board of directors of a domestic violence shelter and also began studying rape crisis centers, I have tried to understand their goals, policies, philosophies, and practices. Often I experienced them as complicated, even mysteriousphilosophically conflicted, structurally muddled, financially precarious, and emotionally tumultuous in short, for a sociologist of gender and organizations, fascinating. However, their troubles dismayed me even as I was inspired by their tenaciousness. Despite many good reasons to give up, most held on. When the specialty area of gendered organizations developed, it allowed me to pursue my intellectual and political interests in feminist organizations, for which I was (and am) grateful. My first publication on feminist organizations appeared in Gender & Society in 1990, prompting Myra Ferree to propose a conference on the topic. We expected 12 to 15 participants, but 42 showed up in Washington, D.C.including two from England and one from Canadarepresenting
AUTHORS NOTE: Thanks to Myra Marx Ferree and Judith Lorber for suggestions on improving this essay. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia Yancey Martin, Department of Sociology, 427 Bellamy Building, P. O. Box 3062270, Florida State University, Tallahassee FL 32306-2270, USA; e-mail: pmartin@ fsu.edu.
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 27 No. 3, June 2013 281-293 DOI: 10.1177/0891243213481263 2013 by The Author(s) 281
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

282GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2013

eight academic disciplines. The interest was far greater than we expected, and 25 original essays from the conference were published in 1995, in Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Womens Movement (Ferree and Martin 1995). Myras expertise in collective behavior and social movements and mine in formal organizations provided a rich theoretical base for collaboration and prompted us, as gender scholars and feminists, to reflect critically on how feminist organizations actually work. Based on research and my experiences with feminist organizations, I contend that Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) is a feminist bureaucracy. Feminism is a social philosophy and social movement aimed at securing equality (including physical safety, economic security, etc.) for women and girls, and bureaucracy is an organizational form that employs rational-legal means to pursue collective goals. Many feminists say bureaucracy is male biased, because of its reliance on rationality and hierarchy, among other qualities (discussed below). Having belonged to SWS for 40-plus years, and having served as vice president in 1980-1981 and president in 2012, I take this opportunity to comment on the changes SWS has been through. By happenstance, my presidency occurred during a time of transitionin office, location, and personnelthus revealing how a 43-year-old feminist organization manages, or tries to manage, in a time of change. What is SWS? Sociologists for Women in Society is a feminist organization founded in 1971 to advance the status of women and girls in sociology and in society (Roby 1992). It is for women, not of women. (Men comprise about 3 percent of the membership.) In 1987, after failing to convince the American Sociological Association to establish a journal on gender, SWS founded a journalGender & Societywhich, to our delight, is among the more widely cited sociology journals globally. (In 2010, G&S ranked in the top four and in 2013, the top 10, and is the topranked journal globally in gender studies.) Thanks to Gender & Societys financial success, SWS, with almost 1000 members, is rich in resources. Yet, like all feminist organizations, it struggles to align its values and goals with its structures and practices. Framing SWS as a feminist bureaucracy can, I believe, offer insights about how getting things right is a perennial challenge. I want to emphasize that SWS is a feminist organization, not only an aggregate of individual feminists. As a bureaucracy, SWS has a budget, a professional staff, elected officers, an operations manual, formal committees (including an Executive Council), and written policies, rules, and procedures. Its feminism was built into the organization by the founders, who believed it could serve as an instrument for improving society on
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

Martin / SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY283

behalf of women and girls. I emphasize its organizational qualities to discourage equating SWS with (only) its members. Like any group, organization, or institutionfamily, friendship, army unit, or university the stance of the institution as expressed by its principles, documents, and spokespersons does not necessarily coincide with the views of individual members. The realities of formal organization are that individual members may (and do) disagree with positions taken by the organization. This is a roundabout way of saying that conflicts between organization and individual are expected and usual, not rare. For a feminist bureaucracy to work (Ashcraft 2001, 2006; and following), commitment, compromise, and tolerance of strategic tensions are required. This essay has four parts. First, I review the problematic relationship of feminism and bureaucracy. Second, I describe the contours of a feminist bureaucracy, an organizational form that Karen Ashcraft (2001) says was created by feminists, is unique, and should serve as a model for others. Third, using Ashcrafts conception, I ask if SWS is a feminist bureaucracy and, if so, what it means for our structures and practices. Appreciating the complexities of SWS may encourage members to appreciate the challenges we face as we attempt to mesh feminism and bureaucracy without giving total sway to either. In the final section, I address implications of the claim and reflect on our future. Feminist OrgAniZAtions And BUreAUcrAcy Bureaucracy and feminism are long-time adversaries. Many secondwave feminists decried bureaucracy from the earliest days. But what is bureaucracy? Sociologically, bureaucracy refers to the structural and procedural dimensions of organizations that, as Max Weber specified, make it possible to coordinate the labor of many people to achieve rationally identified goals (Weber 1947). Its ideal-type dimensions include (a) a division of labor (explicit job titles and descriptions); (b) formalized (written) rules, policies, and procedures (for getting work done); (c) hiring, evaluating, and rewarding based on performance (instead of kin or whim); (d) use of universal (vs. particularistic) standards based on formal position; and (e) a hierarchy of authority that specifies who has power over whom (cf. Martin and Segal 1977). Feminists have often characterized bureaucracy as being hostile to women, the feminine, and feminism. There are reasons for their worries. Max Webers ideal-type conception alleged that women are unfit to participate in a bureaucracy (Martin and Knopoff 1997). According to
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

284GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2013

Weber, bureaucracies require men and the stereotypical practices of masculinity, for example, rationallogical thought, meansend calculation, decisive action, and topdown control. Whereas men behave in these ways naturally, women are constitutionally incapable of doing so. Bureaucracies are thus places for men, a point with which (some) feminists agree. For example, radical feminists often denounced bureaucracy in the second-wave womens movement as male biased and dominated (Ferree and Hess 2000). The bureaucratic feature that makes feminists most uneasy concerns power, that is, a hierarchy of authority that gives some members power over others (Baker 1982). Radical feminists viewed a hierarchical structure as undemocratic and dis-empowering for all but a few. Yet, the flat organizational structures they favored were not trouble free. Flat structures without distinctions based on position can foster conditions that, as Freeman (1972-1973) notes, produce a tyranny of structurelessness (cf. Polleta 2002). Informally accrued power that goes unacknowledged often does harm (Kleinman 1996; Thurston 1987). Failure to acknowledge emergent power differences allows those with more influence to do whatever they please and prevents those with less influence from holding them accountable. When power is tied to a positionan officewith a title, job description, and clear obligations, incumbents who abuse the office can be voted out of office, publicly called out, or shamed. In brief, they can be held accountable. Feminist organizations have, over time, rejected aspects of bureaucracy. Some preferred a rotational job system over a fixed division of labor (Rothschild and Whitt [1986] review alternative institutions on this practice) because job rotation allows everyone to develop knowledge and skill and avoids status distinctions based on differences in expertise or experience. Yet, in many organizations, job rotation was abandoned when it became clear that members spent extensive time learning a new job and less time performing work (Thurston 1987). Feminists have objected to bureaucracy as intrinsically male biased. Given the hierarchical gender segregation in many organizations, men managers routinely have power over women subordinates, thus legitimating mens power over women. Some feminists complain that formalwritten, explicitrules, procedures, and policies are constraining because they prevent decisions being made on the spot, spontaneously, on a case-by-case basis. Rules and procedures are a means of bureaucratic control, they claim. Feminist political scientist Kathy Ferguson (1984) denounced bureaucracy as a discourse of control (following Foucault), which feminizes

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

Martin / SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY285

everyone who comes into contact with itmen and women, administrators and workers, clients, and all of society. To feminize, in Fergusons view, is to subordinate, exploit, control, and dis-empower; feminine means submissive, weak, and powerless. Bureaucracy is a political arena in which struggles for power, status, and personal values and/or survival are endemic (Martin 1987, 7) and is primarily a device to gain greater control over the lives of workers (ibid., 543). Ferguson failed to address bureaucracy as an organizational structure. Also, her negative views of femininity contradict those of organization scholars who see feminine management as anything but submissive, powerless, or dis-empowering (Kirton and Healy 2012). For example, some say feminine management can transform masculine/ist organizations. Helgesen (1990) alleges, for example, that feminine management which is soft, nurturing, supportive, and eschewing topdown control is superior to masculine/bureaucratic management which is hard, suspicious, aggressive, and in favor of top down control. Whereas many feminists denounced bureaucracy, others saw (and see) it as having positive features. From the outset, liberal feminists used a bureaucratic structure to organize on behalf of womens equality (Ferree and Hess 2000), for example, the National Organization for Women and Womens Equity Action League. Early in my career, I studied bureaucracy in social welfare organizations and, over time, came to appreciate its positive potential (cf. Perrow 1986). Cafferata (1982) says that bureaucracy fosters democracy by increasing transparency, making job descriptions explicit, requiring written policies and procedures, prescribing universalistic (over particularistic) criteria, and making evaluations based on performance rather than whim or kin. An explicit division of labor clarifies obligations; an explicit hierarchy of authority clarifies not only authority, but responsibility. The use of formal recruitment methods reduces cronyism and increases womens odds of being selected (Reskin 2005). Abuses of power can occur, of course, but they may not be due to bureaucracy. Treating customers rudely, exploiting subordinates, making racist slurs, and passing over qualified women have per se nothing to do with bureaucracy. A toxic organizational culture can encourage or condone such behavior, as Salomon Brothers did in the 1980s and Enron did in the 1990s-2000s. Furthermore, not only private companies but also public organizations create antisocial cultures and behavior, including sexually abusing children, as recent revelations about Pennsylvania State University have exposed. As I have argued, power can be used to empower as well as to control (Martin 1993). Power in and of itself is not destructive (Lukes
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

286GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2013

2005). Many feminists have critiqued the turbulent relationship of feminists with power, including a former SWS president, Myra Marx Ferree (Ferree 2001; cf. Ferree and Martin 1995 and Heilbrun 1983). Organization scholars have noted bureaucracys compatibility with aspects of hegemonic masculinityfor example, the kind that favors aggression, competition, domination, control, and winning (Calas and Smircich 1991; Collinson and Hearn 1994; Maier and Messerschmidt 1998; Martin 2001, 2003, 2006). For sure, bureaucracy and hegemonic masculinity share favorable views of rationaltechnical thought, a meansend orientation, and hierarchical organization. Furthermore, their compatibility may account for why men (as a rule) feel more empowered by bureaucratic organizations than do women (Bird 2011). Yet, bureaucracy does not inevitably support hegemonic masculinity. When defined nonpejoratively as configurations of practice, masculinity practices can have positive effects, as Connell notes (Connell 2005; Wharton and Bird 1996). Furthermore, masculine and masculinist are not equivalent, although organization scholars regularly fail to acknowledge their differences (e.g., Collinson and Hearn [1994]; also, Kirton and Healy [2012] conflate feminine and feminist management). Feminist BUreAUcrAcy Over time, feminist organizations have ranged widely in their structures and practices (Bordt 1997; Ferree and Martin 1995; Martin 1990). As noted, some have rejected all aspects of bureaucracy while others have embraced bureaucracy wholesale. Yet some, according to organization communication specialist Karen Ashcraft (2001, 2006), have combined selected aspects of feminism and bureaucracy into a unique organizational forma feminist bureaucracy. A feminist bureaucracy is a hybrid organizational form that embraces organized dissonance (Ashcraft 2001). It is hybrid in accepting feminism and (aspects of) bureaucracy; it is dissonant in having discordant elements that must be continuously managed. Musical dissonance is produced as discordant sounds, but there is more to a symphony than only discord, as is similar for a feminist bureaucracy. Discord exists, but by organizing and managing it, feminists create an organizational form that works for them. In two path-breaking articles, Ashcraft shows how members of feminist bureaucracies managed inequality/equality and centralization/ decentralization dialectics (Ashcraft 2001, 1306) and also (1) homogeneity heterogeneity, (2) moralinstrumental aims, and (3) formalized/
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

Martin / SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY287

universalunobtrusive/particular control (Ashcraft 2006). She reviews the contradictions/dialectics on which members of a feminist bureaucracy must collaborate in order to manage. To illustrate, I note the example of a feminist organization accepting bureaucratic hierarchy while aspiring toand claiming to abide bya feminist standard of consensus. The dissonance caused by the conflict between hierarchy (those with more power ultimately decide) and consensus (no hierarchy exists and decisions are agreed to by all) requires continuous accommodation. Those higher in the hierarchyleadersuse power in full awareness that their actions may be challenged by those lower in the hierarchy followers. And, yes, followers routinely challenge. Yet both believe aspects of bureaucracy help them create an organization that aspires to be feminist, both internally (in process) and externally (in impact). Followers accept leaders assurances that their advice will be heard, but not necessarily heeded, and leaders decide and act, knowing that followers may oppose their decisions. In the end, the two sustain a myth of equality while working within a system of inequality. Despite the difficulties inherent in this set-up, Ashcraft sees the result as positive, innovative, and effectivea model that others should emulate. Commenting on feminists troubled relationship with hierarchy, Ashcraft says, Feminists have long objected to the kind of power relations that bureaucracy engenders; thus their search for gender justice and better business has required an alternative organizational form (2001, 1302). The merger of hierarchical and egalitarian modes of power evoke the irony that some individuals can exercise power over others to promote equalilty (ibid., 1304). Ashcraft (2006) further says that feminist bureaucracies are post-bureaucraticthey are no longer bureaucracies in a classical sense because they are guided philosophically by the principles of equality, acceptance of diversity, and individual empowerment (Ashcraft 2006). In this regard, then, the conflict (myth?) referred to earlier is the reality. If members of an organization decide to make it work, it works. Ashcraft says members of feminist bureaucracies do just that. Is SWS A Feminist BUreAUcrAcy? Is SWS a feminist bureaucracy? I think so. Do we successfully blend hierarchical and egalitarian modes of power? I say we do. We strive to abide by the principles of equality, acceptance of diversity, and empowerment. Bureaucracy provides us with guidelines for doing our work, but it does not tie our hands. We are its master, not its slave. Our feminist
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

288GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2013

goals, policies, and priorities guide our practices; they keep us on track. Our hierarchy of authority specifies who is responsible, who can (and will) be held accountable. Ashcraft says a feminist bureaucracy favors consensus decision making while acknowledging the difficulties (impossibility?) of practicing it within a hierarchical structure (Ashcraft 2006). While the feminist bureaucracies she studied are small (one has fewer than 20 employees), SWS has hundreds of members. SWSers meet face-to-face rarely (some never), and even highly active members flow in and out of involvement. Key decisions are made by an elected body, the Executive Council, after consultation with others. The Councils composition changes regularly, with new and retiring members rotating in and out, allowing for new ideas and points of view. The Council, EOB, and all SWS committees try to do what is best for SWS. SWSersleaders and members alikeare guided by feminist principles and, to the extent possible, seek consensus even while embracing a majority-rule standard. Yet, making SWS work requires commitment, time, emotion, energy, and tolerance of people and actions that we sometimes dislike and may believe are wrong. Many interests and viewpoints are at play; easy options are rare; multiple avenues for moving forward exist. Our financial affluence poses an Achilles heel dilemma, tempting us to request (and use) SWS funds for many different purposes. How we deploy SWS resources in the service of improving society for women and girls is far from obvious. Agreeing on priorities, in the context of organized dissonance, is difficult. The SWS commitment to feminism prompts us to reach out within sociology (locally, regionally, and nationally), to the public (society) and to people around the globe. Our members write fact sheets to educate students, families, colleagues, governments, and corporationseveryone we can reachabout issues that affect women and girls. We raise money for feminist organizations that advocate for and support women. Our communications, social media, and press personnel inform the world about SWS members feminist research. Our financial resources let us support graduate students working on their degrees. We honor our members feminist activism, mentoring, and scholarship, and we publish a first-rate journal on gender. SWS has survived many challenges. In the 1970s and early 1980s, we publicly endorsed (or opposed) nominees for American Sociological Association (ASA) office. In a year when this practice caused a brouhaha among candidates whom we opposed (we published our reasons for opposition as well as support), SWS members fought over whether to end it,
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

Martin / SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY289

and eventually we did. Of course, we continued to survey ASA nominees and, happily, most still respond to our survey every spring. In another tumultuous period, we fought over whether to found Gender & Society. I, abashedly, I admit, opposed it. (Thank goodness I lost.) Because a sister organization lost its feminist political edge after starting its journal, I feared wed lose ours. But SWS did not; we have remained faithful to our feminist philosophy, principles, goals, and practices. Founding a national office was a contentious issue. Early arguments against such an action evoked the specter, as readers might guess, of SWS becoming too bureaucratic. We eventually established a hub that later became the Executive Office. And, yes, we became more bureaucratic. The complexities of our expanding financial and administrative structures required richer bylaws, policies, rules, and procedures. We have managed so far, although the recent change of national office and staff prompted new questions about our use of resources, our operational procedures, and the demands we make on our officers and staff. These issues demand attention going forward. DiscUssion And ImPlicAtions If Sociologists for Women in Society is a feminist bureaucracy, we can say that feminism guides us, bureaucracy structures us, and reconciling the two challenges us. The maintenance of a feminist bureaucracy demands effort and time. Yet it also empowers. SWS has weathered ups and downs over four decades and, for the most part, has been strengthened by them. We debate and express differences, but so far, we have avoided letting these practices destroy us. SWS never operated on a consensus basis. Our members have always expressed their points of view strenuously. We have always operated on a majority-rule basis. Neither of these practices is anti-feminist, and I expect them to continue. To those who worry about SWS becoming too bureaucratic, I say, Not likely. We can alter our goals and policies. We can suspend old rules and create new ones. We are not bureaucratically handicapped, we are bureaucratically empoweredto pursue feminist ends. And we pursue our feminist commitments in diverse ways. Yes, we have strategic tensions, organized dissonance, and operational and procedural dilemmas. Reconciling feminist ideals with bureaucratic structures and practices is difficult. But we work to make SWS work even as we tire from the toll it takes. We tolerate dissonance even though we gripe about it. We manage

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

290GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2013

discord and contradictions even when they cause stress. In short, we pursue feminist goals even without a consensus about what they should be. In recognition of the need to reflect on where we are going, a Task Force is now reviewing our SWS Bylaws, Mission Statement, and Long Range Goals. Soon it will report to the membership and our members will decide the future. SWS is one of a few global academic organizations with a healthy investment account. Our annual budgetin the hundreds of thousands of dollarsreflects the royalty income we receive from our journal. These factors, combined with the esteem in which Gender & Society is held by scholars around the globe, suggest a stable financial future. And yet, critical issues are on the horizon. How should we use our surplus funds? Should we establish graduate fellowships, fund a grants system, or found a post-docs program? Should we attempt to shape social policies and practices that affect all women and girls, for example, on health care, violence, abortion rights, and income security? Is SWS for women in society or for women in sociology, as Joey Sprague, former SWS president, has asked (Sprague 2008). Does our subsidization of member attendance at the Winter Meeting suggest that SWS is primarily an organization for itself? (The amount we spend is not trivial.) Do we ask too much of SWS officers? Are we too complex to operate as we did in the past? SWS has contracts with a dozen or so external entitiessome individuals, some professionals, some companies. We hold two national meetings a year, requiring extensive time and effort. Should a hired accountant serve as our treasurer, instead of relying on a volunteer (elected officer) who has no training and may not have the time to do oversight? Decisions on such matters lie ahead. As Ive noted, SWS is not an aggregate of feminists. It is a feminist bureaucracy, a formal organization with political aims that employs bureaucratic methods to achieve its goals. We are an organizationwe organizefor women in society. As Karen Ashcraft might say, You have created a unique organizational forma feminist bureaucracy. Its up to you to make it work. I close with a comment by a journalist on his native Greece (of course, SWSs financial status may be more stable than Greeces): Democracy is like a bicycle. If you dont keep pedaling, you fall (Vaxevanis 2013, A19). Relative to practicing democracy and managing the strategic tensions of a feminist bureaucracy, SWS is in a similar spot. We must keep pedaling or well fall (fail). I favor pedaling.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

Martin / SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY291

References
Ashcraft, Karen Lee. 2001. Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal 44:1301-22. Ashcraft, Karen Lee. 2006. Feminist-bureaucratic control and other adversarial allies: Extending organized dissonance to the practice of new forms. Communication Monographs 73:55-86. Baker, Andrea J. 1982. The problems of authority in radical movement groups: A case study of lesbian-feminist organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18:323-41. Bird, Sharon R. 2011. Unsettling universities incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case study approach. Gender, Work and Organization 18:202-30. Bordt, Rebecca. 1997. The structure of womens nonprofit organization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cafferata, Gail L. 1982. The building of democratic organizations: An embryological metaphor. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:280-303. Calas, Marta B., and Linda Smircich. 1991. Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies 12:567-601. Collinson, David, and Jeff Hearn. 1994. Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender, Work and Organization 1:2-22. Connell, R. W. 2005. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ferguson, Kathy. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Ferree, Myra Marx. 2001. The ironies of power. Gender & Society 15:649-53. Ferree, Myra Marx, and Beth B. Hess. 2000. Controversy and coalition: The new womens movement across three decades of change. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Ferree, Myra Marx, and Patricia Yancey Martin (eds.). 1995. Introduction. In Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new womens movement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Freeman, Jo. 1972-1973. The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 17:151-64. Heilbrun, Carolyn G. 1983. Writing a womans life. New York: Norton. Helgesen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Womens ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday. Kirton, Gill, and Geraldine Healy. 2012. Lift as you rise: Union womens leadership talk. Human Relations 65:979-99. Kleinman, Sheryl. 1996. Opposing ambitions: Gender and identity in an alternative organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power: A radical view. 2nd ed. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Maier, Mark, and James W. Messerschmidt. 1998. Conflicts and contradictions in organizational masculinities: Exploring the gendered genesis of the Challenger disaster. Canadian Review of Sociology 35:325-44.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

292GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2013

Martin, Joanne, and Kathleen Knopoff. 1997. The gendered implications of apparently gender-neutral organizational theory: Re-reading Weber. In Business ethics and womens studies, edited by Andrea Larson and E. Freeman. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 1987. A commentary on The feminist case against bureaucracy by Kathy Ferguson. Womens Studies International Forum 10:543-48. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 1990. Rethinking feminist organizations. Gender & Society 4:182-206. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 1993. Feminist practice in organizations: Implications for management. In Women in management: Issues, trends, and problems, edited by Ellen Fagenson. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2001. Mobilizing masculinities: Womens experiences of men at work. Organization 8:587-618. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2003. Said and done vs. saying and doing: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society 17:342-66. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2006. Practicing gender at work: Further thoughts on reflexivity. Gender, Work and Organization 13:254-75. Martin, Patricia Yancey, and Brian Segal. 1977. Bureaucracy, size and staff expectations for client behavior. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 18:376-90. Perrow, Charles. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay. 3rd ed. New York: Random House. Polleta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reskin, Barbara F. 2005. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. In Handbook of employment discrimination research, edited by L. B. Nielsen and R. L. Nelson. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Roby, Pamela A. 1992. Women and the ASA: Degendering organizational structures and processes, 1964-1974. American Sociologist 23:18-47. Rothschild, Joyce, and J. Allen Whitt. 1986. The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organizational democracy and participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sprague, Joey. 2008. Sociology: The good, the bad, the public. Gender & Society 22:697-704. Thurston, Maxine Amelia. 1987. Strategies, constraints, and dilemmas of alternative organizations: A study of womens health centers. Unpublished dissertation, School of Social Work, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Vaxevanis, Kostas. 2013. Greeces rotten oligarchy. The New York Times, 6 January. Weber, Max. 1947. The theory of social and economic organizations (A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, trans.). London: Collier Macmillan. Wharton, Amy S., and Sharon R. Bird. 1996. Stand by your man: Homosociality, work groups, and mens perceptions of difference. In Masculinities in organizations, edited by C. Cheng. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013

Martin / SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY293

Patricia Yancey Martin recently completed a term of service as President of Sociologists for Women in Society, the 34th. She is Professor of Sociology Emerita, Florida State University, and has been a member of SWS since 1972. Her research has long focused on gendered organizations. Recent books include Handbook of Gender, Work, and Organization (2011) and Rape Work: Victims, Gender, and Emotions in Organization and Community Context (2005). Her email address is pmartin@fsu.edu.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on December 9, 2013