According to their website, PROJECT RESPECT.ORG works to combat sexual and gender based violence amongst South Dakota’s Native American youth by promoting healthy, responsible and respectful relationships through holistic and contextually relevant capacity building  activities that instigate confidence building, peer education, cultural preservation and positive social change, with the intended outcome of increased educational and economic opportunities.

Holly was raised in western South Dakota and graduated from St. Olaf College. She was a staffer for former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle,  a former child advocate for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), and served as a sexual assault advocate for Working Against Violence, Inc. in Rapid City.   She was also a public policy fellow for the Population Institute in Washington, DC and has worked as a Career Transition Advisor for the Department of Labor’s Job Corps program.

Kelsey: Why did you decide to start Project Respect.Org?

Holly: I’ve had almost  a decade of experience working with low-income youth and women, in several different capacities.  For the last four years I’ve worked with a large number of Native American youth and young adults, and I’ve witnessed the ramifications from an epidemic of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV).  These ramifications affect everything for these youth; how they interact in person and on social media, the relationship choices they make, the type of education they receive, whether or not they’ll graduate from high school, go on to college or get a job, or how early in life they have children,  and their possible dependency on alcohol or drugs.  To me, this is an issue that can no longer be ignored.

K: How was the current non-profit landscape failing to meet the needs that you were seeing?

H: I think there are several organizations in South Dakota that do a phenomenal job in providing advocacy and support for victims of of SGBV, and they do good job of bringing public awareness to the problem.  With that said, many of the services that these organizations provide come into play after SGBV has already occurred.  Project Respect.Org is different in that our mission focuses entirely on holistic approaches to prevention, and these approaches need to happen early in life–I’m talking about intervention for grammar school aged children, and perhaps even pre-K.  By the time we start teaching non-violence to tweens and teens, it’s often too late for many youth.  I’m not saying that attitudes can’t be changed at that point, but children—young children–start learning about the value of relationships and love and respect before they can even talk.  With this said, finding a holistic approach to prevent and combat SGBV isn’t going to be easy, and it is not going to happen over night.  That’s why a large portion of our program design in the early stages is reaching out to the Native community and getting data through needs assessments.  This will help us capture a better picture of the problem and help us find the right tools for solutions.  Project Respect.Org’s mission is also unique in that we want all approaches to encompass cultural preservation, and we also want to  to build bridges between the Native and non-Native community.  In my view,  just as the problem of sexual violence was largely introduced to Native culture through colonization by non-Natives, it should end with the help of non-Natives.

K: What kind of results have you seen so far? Any big surprises?

H: Community support for our mission has been great.  Everyone I talk to agrees that this is an issue that has been ignored for far to long.  I’ve also been overwhelmed at how welcoming the Native community has been of our group’s efforts.  I am white, and I’ve worried that some people may view me as an outsider coming in to try to “fix” a problem through a euro-centric approach, and I honestly can’t blame any member of the Native community who might feel that way.  But so far, the response has been amazing.  The community members and students I’ve been privileged to work with thus far have been wholeheartedly supportive of our mission.  I should add that our organization is made up of Native and non-Native board members, and our objective is to make the organization sustainable for and by the Native community through holistic, culturally relevant practices. As far as surprises go–I’m finding that the widely cited statistic that one of every three Native women will be a victim of sexual violence is likely too low.  We don’t have hard quantitative data yet, but just from online surveys and informal focus groups, I’d say that the more likely statistic is two out of every three women are or will be a victim, which is staggering.

K: The lack of data on the actual extent of violence against Native women is definitely a problem. Were you aware of the some of the conflicting studies that have come out in recent years that primarily argue about the race of the perp? I had written an article about it for the Institute of American Indian Studies about it and we came to the conclusion that there was really a need for someone to gather more qualitative data, sort of like Amnesty International did with their report, but focused just in SD.  I know the Government Research Bureau at USD was also working on a grant to try to train data gatherers on reservations in an attempt to fill in a lot of statistical gaps, but I’m not sure what ever became of that. Anyway, it seems like a problem that everyone recognizes and no one is ever able to address.

H: You bring up an excellent point.  The Amnesty International report “Maize of Injustice” indicated that most perpetrators of sexual violence against Native women are in-fact non-Native.  However, I think there may be some   debate about that finding.  One thing to remember is that girls and women who are isolated on reservation communities lack the resources and agency support to report an assault, so there is currently no sure way to find out how many assaults on the reservations go unreported.  Also, a lot of statistics compiled by the federal government relied on the very outdated 1923 definition of “rape.”  Now that that definition has changed, it may allow for more accurate reporting.  It is very important to understand that many, many women on reservations who are abused or assaulted do not report it–in fear of retaliation from the perp–and in many cases, even family members.  There are some great lobbying efforts being done by the Indian Law Resource Center and other organizations to increase the training and resources on reservations to help get a system in place to track the number of assaults and investigate the assailants.  American Indian women face challenges that no other ethnicity faces when it comes to seeking justice in SGBV related crimes.

K: How do issues of reproductive justice fit in to your mission? Some anti-violence organizations tend to shy away from taking those on.

H: The  concept behind reproductive justice is  something that can be tied into  a holistic approach to combating and preventing SGBV.   The greater theory behind reproductive justice is that all women and girls, regardless of economic status or ethnicity, be given the right to control her sexual identity, activity and reproduction.  With that said, we are not an organization that will provide referrals to reproductive health care centers or birth control- as there are other organizations that provide that type of advocacy and support.   But part of our holistic approach will include accessing the needs of young girls and women to see what tools are required to to ensure that they have control of their mental, physical and sexual health. In our view, those tools are required to prevent a climate that supports SGBV.
K: What are your ultimate goals for ProjectRespect.Org? Where do you hope to see yourselves in 5 years?

H: Our goal is to become a self sustaining organization that is actively promoting SGBV prevention while encouraging education and economic opportunities.  Sexual violence is often a symptom of larger underline assumptions including poverty, lack of family structure, lack of male remodels and low self-esteem. By implementing our intervention strategies on multiple levels (individual, interpersonal and community), we will promote cultural programs centering on the concept of ‘yuo’nihan’ (Lakota term for ‘respect’), which increases cultural pride and self-esteem, and eliminates an environment that unintentionally fosters SGBV. We believe that this will result in increases of high school graduation and secondary education completion for Native youth, which in turn promotes economic opportunity and establishes a new cultural cycle that prevents SGBV.  In five years, our goal is to be an established, self sustaining organization with programs in Native communities throughout South Dakota.

K: You’re a pretty accomplished person — what’s made you decide to stay in South Dakota instead of doing ‘bigger and better’ things elsewhere?

H: I’ve been blessed with opportunities to travel and live elsewhere in the US, but South Dakota has always had my heart, and it will always be my home.  I think of myself as pretty progressive, which can be frustrating- given our state’s political landscape.  But in my view, there is nothing more important than trying to bring positive social change to something that you love and deeply care about.  I was very lucky to grow up with a father who taught me the importance of empathy as young girl.  He educated me on Native American history and culture, he took me to powwows and the Lakota Nation Invitationals when I was growing up.  He had me read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” when I was in the 8th grade.  He basically gave me the tools to recognize and call out the racism against Native peoples that was ( and sadly still is) extremely prevalent in many parts of South Dakota.  And this racism, in many ways,  contributes to the epidemic of SGBV amongst Native youth.  I am blessed to have a strong will and the skills to help fight this problem.  What can be “bigger and better” than that?

K: How can DW readers get involved with your mission?

H: Like everyone, we need money!!!  Make an online gift at http://fundly.com/projectrespectdonate. But if you can’t donate, support us online, like us on Facebook, or join our social media campaign that is accessible through our website. We are also looking for monthly guest bloggers.  We also hope to start some direct services with youth in Rapid City, so we’ll need basic donations like office supplies, art supplies and other misc. items.

Looking at the bulk of legislation introduced by our state legislators, you would get the impression that both guns and fetuses are in constant danger, thus an armed fetus demonstrates our commitment to the protection of both.

An homage both to our soon-to-be state mascot and our defense of the inalienable right to text and drive.

Taking into account several Representatives historical concerns, this flag features scenes from some of the memorable murals of Parks & Recreation’s Pawnee City Hall, as well as our own state capitol. Without clicking the links, can you tell which is which?

Have your own flag idea? Share with us on our Facebook page or tweet us @dakotawomenblog!

I’m sure plenty out there are already mad at me for hatin’ on ‘America’s favorite pastime,’ but c’mon, y’all – just think about it! You can like football all you want, but what kind of message this event sends is not only not awesome for future generations, but it’s also not awesome for how America is often perceived on the world stage, and it’s not awesome for gender parity as a whole (not to mention our cholesterol, plumbing, and Monday work performance). I’d also argue the majority of people that pack their houses with people for the party aren’t doing so because they particularly care about the game itself. They’re just going with the flow — you know, like identifying as “pro-life” because “everyone else is doing it.” And while Super Bowl Sunday isn’t unlike the feasting we do on Thanksgiving, at least we’re theoretically also giving thanks for something (other than burgers and Bud Light) then and spending time with family.

“But I just watch it for the commercials! They’re sooooooo funny!” Look, I like comedy as much as the next person. It’s why I watch shows like Parks and Rec, Community, and occasionally do things like visit the Vermillion Char Bar or listen to SD legislative debates. But these commercials have ceased to be funny long ago. Is it inventive to be bros and talk hot chicks? Hasn’t Jersey Shore helped us reach the American quota on that until, like, 2050? Is it funny to see frogs say “Bud-wei-ser” or a baby talk about the stock market, I mean really? Maybe it’s just me, but I’d take the IKEA commercial of a kid playing with a vibrator any day of the week over the fizzling fireworks people will be ripping on tomorrow. And you’re not gonna see that on a day like today.

“This chick just hates sports!” Well, that’s not entirely untrue. I like playing some sports, but unless it’s something like Olympic trampoline-ing, watching sports just seems boring to me. And I get people like excuses to start drinking heavily in the early afternoon – believe me I do – but it’s America after all and you can do that whenever you damn well please (well, except access basic women’s healthcare). It’s right there in the Constitution!

“But it’s the biggest football game of the year and sooooooo exciting!” Given my Facebook feed, I’d argue that few football enthusiasts seem particularly excited about this year’s competing teams. I’d imagine that’s a lot of years. And if it’s the thrill of the actual game – those suspenseful moments of sweaty man tackles — that gets you riled, I’d argue you could be just as, if not more entertained heading to the 18^th Amendment or Bucks near bar close on any given weekend. And then you’d have the added bonus of some really fantastic dialogue that generally ends with America-themed flashing lights.

This year, those tricky marketers almost had me duped with their Madonna halftime performance.  Even the Material Girl herself had me under her spell with this girl crush trifecta. But you know what? Even though MIA is rumored to cameo with her (and that obviously rules in real time because I can’t get enough of her new “Bad Girls” video and am listening to it at this very second), the performance, much like a lot of award shows, is full of restrictions and hollow, status quo flash and in the end, BOR-ING. It’s always better the next day when you can skip to the good parts (if there even are any) over breakfast and coffee. I saw the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” live and I was not an enlightened person because of it, folks. Isn’t the real entertainment people like Colbert making fun of it anyway?

Most importantly, the Super Bowl and football as a whole does little to contribute to equality or enlighten the American population on any level. There are a lot lady issues this Feminist Fuck You and Modern Lady: Beer Commercials point out about why the SB sucks for feminism. Oh yeah, and remember that whole “We’re going to air a completely anti-choice commercial, too” situation from 2009? This year, head Operation Rescue lunatic, Randall Terry, is about to blow that one out of the water!

Last year, over 163 million people tuned in to the Super Bowl. Conversely, only 38 million tuned in for this year’s State of the Union address. And even in an election that shattered records, only 130 million-ish people voted in 2008. What if even 38 million people cared equally about issues like poverty, literacy, and gender equity as they did about little smokies? Well, for one, the SD legislature wouldn’t resemble an episode of Manswers.

I call on my fellow feminist Americans to reject the Stupid Bowl and spend the evening doing something anti-Super Bowl like something physical, reading your kids a book, eating only one meal, and doing something to make the world a better place. You could start by emailing your SD legislators and telling them to call off the circus. Or you could sign up to feed the homeless at the Banquet in Sioux Falls. Or you can donate the money you would have spent on a Super Bowl stadium-themed meat and cheese tray and give it to the charity of your choice. Wanna damn the man? Then stick it to the Stupid Bowl!

I’ll close with one of my favorite Ben Hoffman videos, because if I haven’t yet made clear my position, I think the Super Bowl sucks.

*But no fetal pain bill? They’ve got to be up to something right?

*This story is sad. Not helping your reputation or your legacy of abusive mission boarding schools, Catholics.

*I’m just having a really hard time believing that people don’t know that having sex with an 11 year old is against the law, even if they have been watching Jersey Shore.

*Depending on who you ask, Susan G. Komen has reversed their anti-Planned Parenthood policy. Or they really haven’t. Regardless, there’s still plenty of criticism.

*Enjoy some weekend man candy. Thank you, Prada!

To be honest, my discomfort with Komen and their brand of pink, fluffy breast cancer is not new. Because I have a number of friends who work with South Dakota’s affiliate (including my mother, a breast cancer survivor), and the annual Race for the Cure is held in Vermillion, bringing thousands of people into my town, I’ve generally kept that discomfort to myself (and even participated in the race). I think this latest move, however, removes any doubt that those at the top of the Komen ranks are not putting women and their health first.

When I was in law school, I couldn’t help chafing at the annual “Save the Boobies” fundraiser, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. It was this essay by Barbara Ehrenreich that changed my way of thinking about breast cancer and the way we choose to fight it. And beyond my own distaste for the consumerism aspect of the pink ribbon campaign and for turning something as horrifying as cancer into a big pink sparkly lady party where we come up with cute names for our breasts, there are a number of other more serious issues that Komen needs to be taken to task for, like opposing legislation that would help low income cancer patients, taking funding from companies who make products that are linked to cancer and allowing them to make money off of pink ribbon-branded products, suing non-profits for using the phrase ‘for the cure,’ the extreme salaries of their top executives, avoiding discussion of environmental toxin causes of breast cancer and an unquestioning commitment to mammograms above all other screening options (perhaps due to financial support from drug and medical equipment makers; at the very least there’s a huge conflict of interest there) — the list goes on and on. There’s even a film being shown at festivals right now that talks about ‘pinkwashing’ and some of the other deeply troubling aspects of the Komen organization.

As I said, there are many good people involved with the South Dakota Komen affiliate and I believe they’ve done good things for women in our state. On their official Facebook page, they’ve responded to the controversy, stating, “We again would like to thank you all for your comments. The SD Affiliate respects every comment that has been received. We have been blessed to have amazing grant recipients in this state who are reaching a large number of women, to support our mission of saving lives. Last year our funding provided over $140,000 in services (mammograms, education, outreach and other needs) to the state. We have provided over $800,000 dollars to our grantees since the SD Affiliate started. I would like to note that Planned Parenthood has not requested money from the South Dakota Komen Affiliate and therefore we as an affiliate are not denying them, or taking money away from them.” Fair enough.

But the fact is, everyone who currently donates time, money, or tennis shoe rubber to the Susan G. Komen Foundation is going to have some hard decision to make as to whether they’re willing to continue to be associated with an organization with such questionable policies and leadership. I for one am going to be directing my charitable dollars to Breast Cancer Action.

Then it occurred to me that maybe I was the one who was confused. Perhaps these four actually don’t like babies as much as I’d been led to believe. And if I’m confused, so too are a passionate constituency with lots of disposable income that these enterprising politicians might be missing out on: people who hate children. Folks, you could be rolling in donations from anti-kid voters, but they probably don’t even know you’re on their side! So in the spirit of lending a helping hand, I found a number of shirts from Cafe Press stores that would get the message out to those who may not pay much attention to committee votes.

Nice, right? No more confusion about where you stand!

P.S. I was going to offer to buy y’all some of these, but I actually really love children and don’t want to fund the haters. My helpful nature only goes so far. Sorry!

*This film about egg donation looks really interesting and addresses some issues of reproductive justice that don’t normally get as much attention.

*A good reminder of another adverse effect of ‘baby roulette‘: it’s bad for babies, too.

*According to a new study, the proportion of unsafe abortions globally rose from 44 percent in 1995 to 49 percent in 2008.

*A pissing contest — literally! Alright, alright, so, it’s not as bad as the beating up of hookers and taking your money back of Grand Theft Auto, but this is pretty WTF.

*I know I’m not a the only Hoarders addict out there. Did you know that Matt Paxton has podcast? If I went to the gym, this is totally what I’d listen to.

*Always a good reminder in this political season: “In January you’ve still got the choice…”