Race, class, and gender are social, political, economic, and cultural constructs that describe the posifionalities of people. How these constructs are defined depends on the status occupied by individuals and the individual, institutional, and societal status of the individuals who have the power to construct hierarchies. The authors examine the intersection of race, class, and gender and the dimensions of oppression and discrimination in counseling. Historical and contemporary dimensions of racism, misogyny, and classism are presented.La Raza, clase social, y el genero son construcciones sociales, politicas, economicas, y culturales que describen las posicionalidades de la gente. La definicion de estas construcciones depende de la posicion social ocupada por 10s individuos e instituciones que tienen el poder de construir estas jerarquias. Los autores examinan el cruce de la raza, la clase, y el genero y las dimensiones de la opresion y la discriminacion en la consejeria. Las dimensiones historicas y contemporaneas del racismo, la misoginia, y el clasismo se presentan.ace, class, and gender are a constellation of positionalities (e.g., social locations) that classify, categorize, and construct the social value that is R assigned to individuals according to various components (e.g., beliefs, concepts, and structures that define social practice). This constellation of positionalities legitimizes either indignities or privileges (Robinson, 1999) depending on whether one is on the margin of society (e.g., people of color, women, poor) or at the core (e.g., White, male, middle and upper class) of society. Positionalities "possess rank, have value, and are constructed hierarchically, particularly those that are visible and discernible" (Robinson, 1999, p. 73). Members of the dominant culture (e.g., White, male, and middle and upper classes) are the framers of the constitution, bearers of power, and developers of policy. The dominant culture quickly acquired an expansionist mode and began "spreading a suffocating blanket of White domination over almost all the other peoples of the globe" (Bonacich, 1992, p. 104).It is clear that this behavior signifies the effort of the dominant racial and social class to maintain a viable position in the balance of power and profit. The economic, political, social, and racial crises of the dominant class continue to be borne by people of color, the working poor (e.g., individuals who have jobs but do not earn enough money to support their family), and women. Women of color learned as early as childhood that race and gender discrimination would be a part of their lives (Higginbotham, 1992). It is unmistakable that the individuals who have power dictate the distribution of economic resources, the marginalization and exclusion of whole cultures of people, and the devaluation of women.Economically, people of color and women make up the majority of the adult population in the federally defined poverty class (McCormick, 1994). The majority of women remain concentrated in gender-segregated, ...

Case studies of women's organizations have focused on urban programs but neglected the unique problems faced by rural programs. This article explores the organizational politics of four rural battered women's programs in Appalachia. The lack of feminist networks, the defensiveness of communities, and organizational isolation present special challenges to rural women activists. These factors have shaped the organizational structures and tactics of rural-based organizations and have resulted in organizations that are different from their urban counterparts. A successful social movement to end male violence needs to maintain its flexibility of tone and method and to support its programs'adaptations to the communities in which they are located.

During the past two decades, opportunities for women's social movement organizations to expand their scope of engagement have often been accompanied by greater vulnerability to donor discipline and scrutiny. Efforts by activists to accommodate the demands for accountability and institutional sustainability by professionalizing their organizations have been instrumental in moving feminist concerns into the political mainstream. However, such institutionalization has frequently contributed to the persistence or creation of social hierarchies within and between women's organizations, as well as to shifts in their social change agendas and action strategies. This article examines the common dilemmas of activists in Latin America and the United States, bringing together two usually separate domains of scholarship to analyze the course, costs, and possibilities of organizational transformation.During the past two decades, spaces for feminist interventions and actions have proliferated within the state, international development arenas, and global policy networks. As women's movements have moved off the street into political institutions across the Americas, questions of how best, in Basu's (1995, 16) words, to "work the state" are far from resolved. Indeed, as Sassen (1998) observed, globalization, privatization, and the proliferation of organized efforts by nonstate actors, especially women, in new human rights regimes are changing the very nature of the state itself. At the same time that this expanding arena for feminist politics offers

No abstract