Getting It Down On Paper

The following is a jumble of thoughts that are not fully formed into a singular idea, but it is important to me to capture them in a state of flux and to share them to aid in the formation of a greater idea.
 
Gathered around a computer on Monday night with the women of my book club I realized there needs to be a shift. Sitting in a pew at Sixth & I Synagogue last night I realized that I could help source, not just support a new idea. Perhaps the catalysts seem disparate, but these two statements are now steeping in my brain:

-Only women can manage to be 50 percent of the world's population and still be a special interest group.

-Giving can be an intrinsic part of a for-profit business model.

The first was remarked by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, author of The Dressmaker of Khair Khana a book about an extraordinary woman who created a business in Afghanistan that employed dozens of women during the Taliban rule of the past decades. In discussing her work with her directly surrounded by a group of women I have known for more than a decade I was struck that we could be doing more here and abroad.

Why is it that women have allowed societal pressures to fit in, succeed and advance compromise how we treat each other. Why are we unable to support each other at work, at home, at large without first judging, competitively measuring and compromising our own ethos. For all the examples of women empowerment and support of women's initiatives we may read or even experience, we still limit our own capacity for fundamentally altering society by perpetuating the negative and limiting constructs of the past. We judge ourselves, each other and then blame society.

The second idea came from Blake Mycoskie speaking about his new book Start Something That Matters. The idea that he frames his work with TOMS not as a shoe company, but rather around the one for one idea came into focus for me as he was speaking. For-profit companies can perpetuate societal change, be the subject of cause marketing, and still meet their stakeholder obligations.

From where I sit on a daily basis, I see people view the world in starkly different ways. Those that believe you can connect purpose and profit and those that believe connecting those ideas compromises the profit.

I believe we have an obligation to change business constructs and I believe women can help drive this change from within.

One Less Gift

After the multi-month purge of our unused, not needed household belongings I thought for sure we'd be in good shape for the holidays. Yet as I scurried about the house the other night picking up the obscene amount of paper we seem to pile up week-to-week I looked around and suddenly saw at least 100 more things we don't need. Why is that one drawer still so full? Oh right, because I have a dozen versions of a spatula shoved in there.

The poor sagging bookshelves that are way past their prime, weighed down by books that we have no intention of reading again and frankly don't even pass the "hey they are smart, look at the books they have" test that we all pretend we don't do, but totally do.

I have two silver plated beverage buckets that are great for holding beverages at a party for 30. They've been in a box for going on five years now. So either I need to throw more parties or perhaps their peak usage during our 20s has past.

How is it that when I finished my last trip to Goodwill in September, I thought I had checked every corner, given away anything that wasn't necessary. Suddenly, my house once again seems overrun, full of the Crate & Barrel empire I thought I had at least thinned.

This was top of mind when we were asked about Christmas lists. For the first time, we can really say, we don't "need" anything. Seriously, enough with the stuff. We love you and we're sure it (whatever it is) is lovely, but really we'd rather just see you and not have one more thing to dust. Or as DH wisely said, add it to our down payment fund.

I've also been struck by how much we focus on filling up our trees and stockings with gifts for the pleasure of watching each other open them. Even if we know half the items will be abandoned or broken within the next year, we want to make sure we "buy enough."

So here's an idea. What if we each put one beautifully wrapped box under the tree that represented the gift not given to each other. Instead of buying one more toy or pair of cashmere socks, we instead donate that value, whether it's $5 or $100, to a family in need or charity that serves them in your local area. That box could be opened and used as a moment to remember how lucky we all are to have a tree and stockings to open on Christmas morning. Maybe it becomes an annual tradition and you can recall together who the box helped each year.

If we can spend the energy moving an elf from shelf to shelf for an entire month, the effort required to do a little less and help someone a little more is surely worthwhile.

P.S. My brilliant friend Danielle is tackling this same idea through her very cool project TooMuchToDo.

Reframing Microfinance

If you give only what you do not need, it's not giving.

Harumph. This is an uncomfortable idea. One that may be easily dismissed, but caused me to sit bolt up right and grab a pen to write it down. Striving to consume less requires a prioritization of purchases, commitments and giving. Considering what you give to potentially be of limited consequence is not so pleasant.

I've been examining our spending and consumption habits to-date from a save more, consume less point of view. What if the whole point is to save more, give more?

Realistically, I'm going to reach a point where we've run out of books to give to the library; clothes and items to donate to Goodwill; dress clothes to give Dress for Success; unused pantry items for the food drive. These are all things we do not need. Sure we are giving it and others will benefit from it, but the greater sentiment is not moot.

What if the point is reframing our point-of-reference even further?

There's the much repeated story by various members of the Kennedy family about having cereal for dinner one night a week so that the money they would have spent on dinner could be given to charity. A similar sentiment was shared this past week, when our minister Charlie Parker remarked in his sermon, wouldn't it be great if we had to tell our kids, our families, we can't do this or that because we choose instead to give to the church?

Giving does not need to be framed in the context of Christianity or any other belief system for that matter to be meaningful or directed. It need only be authentic, purposeful, life changing.

And I guess that's it. What does that mean for us? How does giving to a cause factor into actual budgeting? After the mortgage, expenses, saving for the college fund, paying off the college loans, and saving for retirement...where's the line item for investing in change? On our own micro, maybe nano level.

Microfinancing isn't something we can do only for Africa. Microfinancing is what we should be doing with our own budgets. We could each be investing in the local, national, and international causes we believe in with the same discipline we pay our bills. That's meaningful, that would be amazing.