LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives















By Topic:










By Author:











Proportional Font





PORTSIDE  December 2012, Week 1

PORTSIDE December 2012, Week 1


Women, Power, and Social Change: Beyond the 2012 Election


Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>


[log in to unmask]


Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:32:39 -0500





text/plain (564 lines)

Women, Power, and Social Change:  Beyond the 2012 Election

by Marc Beallor

December 3, 2012

Published by Portside

On November 6th, women played a decisive role in determining
the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections.
According to UPI, "Women made up 54 percent of the
electorate . . . and widened the pro-Democratic gender gap
to 18 points." 55% of all women's votes, but 67% of single
women's, went to Obama.

Time Magazine reported that the incoming "113th Congress
will mark the first time that white men are a minority in
the House Democratic Caucus."  Time also reported that  "The
new Congress . . . will boast the largest number of incoming
female House members since 1992, and a record 28 women of
color," and that "despite the retirements" of two Republican
senators, "women gained ground in the U.S. Senate, expanding
their ranks from 17 members to 20, a new record."

But as important as these achievements were, the electoral
gains of women barely made a dent in the male-dominated
composition of Congress.  The proportion of female members
of Congress will only increase from 17% to 18% - still below
the world average of 20.3%.  The United States' ranking for
women in national office - 80th of 190 countries in 2011 -
will likely continue its downward trajectory as women
continue to make impressive gains world-wide.

State legislatures averaged 23.7% women nationwide in 2012.
"This is a slight decrease from the 2010 session's ratio of
24.5 percent female legislators," reports the National
Conference of State Legislatures on its website.  With
countries as diverse as Rwanda, Nicaragua, Finland, and Cuba
having more than 40% women in their national legislatures,
why has the United States' level of women's political
leadership remained so low?

There are at least three reasons.  The first is the U.S.
winner-take-all electoral system.  Most other nations have
proportional representation, permitting voting for slates of
candidates chosen by different parties - the number of
candidates seated from each party's slate is then determined
by the percentage of the vote received by that party.
Studies have shown that proportional representation
increases opportunities for the selection and election of
female candidates. (Anne Stevens, Women, Power and Politics,
2007, p. 83)

A second reason, often overlapping with the one above, is
the existence of electoral gender quotas in more than half
of the world's nations.  These quotas take one of three
forms: a set number of reserved seats, a requirement that
candidate lists have a minimum percentage of women, or
voluntary quotas adopted by political parties. Most of these
quotas were implemented in the last 20 years, the 1995 World
Conference of Women having provided much of the spark.
These quota systems "have led to a dramatic increase in
female leaders across the globe," according to Rohini Pande
and Deanna Ford of Harvard University. (2012 World
Development Report on Gender Quotas and Female Leadership)

A third reason for the small percentage of women in elected
office in the US is the out-of-control system of campaign
finance.  Studies have shown that there are very real
obstacles to women candidates' ability to compete with men
in raising money - despite the fact that other studies have
shown that women candidates, once having achieved ballot
status, have as good a shot at being elected as do men.

The Liberation and Empowerment of Women

The movement for the Liberation and Empowerment of Women
(LEW) has been growing exponentially since the publication
of Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of
Women" in 1792. From that point, it was more than a century
before women won the right to vote in New Zealand, the first
nation to enact women's suffrage.  By 1922, women had won
suffrage rights in over twenty nations, including the United

At the time of the creation of the United Nations, the only
countries with more than a token number of women in their
legislative bodies were the socialist states.  Fifty years
later, in 1997, twenty-eight parliaments had at least 20%
women, but only five had more than 30% (Sweden's 40.4% was
the highest).  By 2011, thirty parliaments had exceeded 30%
women's participation.  Today, 74 out of 190 nations have at
least 20% women's participation in their national
legislative bodies.  Rwanda currently has the largest bloc
of women - 52% combined in their two chambers.

The Nordic nations are arguably the most socially advanced
societies in the world.  Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
and Iceland have some of the world's highest standards of
living and the least inequality.  They also have far more
women in political power than any other regional grouping:
Sweden ranks fourth among the world's nations with 44% women
in its parliament; Finland is seventh with 42%; Iceland,
Norway, and Denmark are 10th, 11th, and 12th, with just
under 40%.  By comparison China and the United States rank
64th and 80th (of 190 countries) with only 21% and 17% women
in national legislative leadership respectively.

The Nordic nations also rank highest in the world in terms
of overall gender equality.  The latest (2012) "Gender Gap
Report" issued by the World Economic Forum ranks Iceland,
Finland, Norway, and Sweden as the top four nations in
gender equality.  Denmark ranks seventh, slightly behind
Ireland and New Zealand.  The United States and China rank
22nd and 69th respectively.

Could it be that the exceptional empowerment of women in the
Nordic nations is one causal factor of those societies' more
progressive nature?  Conversely, could the low percentage of
women in US Congress (17%), and slightly better (24%) in
state legislatures, be a factor contributing to the relative
political and social backwardness of the United States?  A
growing body of research suggests that the answer is yes.

Sex and Science

Many studies have shown that women in government tend to
place a higher priority on social needs than men.  For
instance, the political scientists Susan J. Carroll and
Richard L. Fox have written that:

"Studies of members of the U.S. House of Representatives,
for example, have found that women are more likely than men
to support policies favoring gender equity, day care
programs, flex time in the work place, legal and accessible
abortion, minimum wage increases, and the extension of the
food stamp program. . . Similarly, a number of studies have
found that women serving in legislatures at the state level
are also more likely than men to give priority to,
introduce, and work on legislation related to women's
rights, health care, education, and the welfare of families
and children.  When women are not present in sufficient
numbers among public officials, their distinctive
perspectives are under-represented."  (Gender and Elections,
2006, emphasis added)

And Gail Collins, New York Times columnist, offered this:

"One of the most interesting factoids gleaned from a
generation's worth of survey research on women in politics
is that while men often embark on a political career to make
business contacts, women generally get into the game because
they want to help. . .That impulse to help is in keeping
with what pollsters find about women voters - they're more
likely to support social spending and activist government."
(Why the Women Are Fading Away, October 25, 1998)

Anthropologist Helen Fisher also weighed the evidence,
concluding that women "are more inclined to favor all kinds
of social programs and social services and to regard issues
of education, health care, child care, poverty, and
joblessness as essential elements of the national agenda."
(The First Sex, 1999)

There are various theories to explain these differences
between men and women, not only in political matters but in
a wide range of attitudes and behaviors.  There are some who
deny any differences and others who attribute the
differences strictly to socialization and other cultural
influences. Relatively recent advances in the psychological
and biological sciences have provided strong evidence that
these differences go deeper.

The psychologist and neuroscientist Ian H. Robertson was
recently interviewed on NPR station WNYC by Leonard Lopate.
They discussed what Robertson and other scientists believe
is a universal human need for power - power defined as
influence and impact, not simply domination.  For example,
teachers may fulfill their need for power by having an
impact on their students; others exercise a need for power
by becoming police officers or accumulating wealth.  He
described studies demonstrating differences between the
power needs of women and men.

In his new book, The Winner Effect, Robertson wrote that
"women on average do not have any lower need for power than
men, and women respond to competition and power in very
similar ways to men.  But there are differences:  it seems
that men are more power aware - they pay more attention to
signs of power than women do, and they remember more facts
about more powerful than less powerful people, while women
do not show this selective memory.  Finally, men sniff out
the power relationships in a room quicker than women do."
(The Winner Effect p. 226)

Robertson then discusses the existence of two quite distinct
types of power need - "personal power" and "social power"
(referred to as "p-power" and "s-power").  Men's power need
leans more towards p-power, defined as a desire for
dominance manifested by a tendency "to be satisfied
assertively, with a strong drive to beat the opponent and
win the contest."  On the other hand, women's power need
leans towards s-power - defined as "power need focused on
goals for an institution, a group or a society . . . to
achieve a change for some wider benefit than just the high
of winning:  in particular, the high social power person
tends to feel some moral or legal standard governing his or
her behavior and along with that is a sense of obligation
and a concern for others." (ibid p. 229)

Robertson attributes the hormone testosterone, which men
produce far more of than women, to the on average greater
desire for personal dominance among men. "Testosterone," he
writes, "changes the brain because it alters its chemistry.
In particular it boosts levels of the neurotransmitter
dopamine."  Dopamine, as many of us know, is the brain
chemical responsible for rewarding us for pleasurable
behaviors, including those like drugs, sex, and gambling,
which can become addictive.  Personal power, Robertson
emphasizes, can also become addictive. (ibid p. 115)

Robertson cites the 2002 collapse of Enron as one example of
the potentially destructive nature of p-power.  "The higher
you are in a steep hierarchy," he writes, "the more power
you have over those below you, whether psychological,
financial, or physical.  Power pumps testosterone into the
blood, which in turn - via the winner effect - further
inflates your power by helping you win in the future." (ibid
p. 103)

Basing his conclusions on a great deal of research,
Robertson believes that most people have varying degrees of
need for both types of power.  In this majority of
individuals, including men, "s-power not only tames p-power
- it also dissolves p-power's physiological linkage to
testosterone and the competitive aggression that goes with
it.  S-power acts as a sort of coolant on the potent but
sometimes destructive effects of unmitigated p-power, and
women's minds have more of this coolant.  What's more, s-
power's dissolving effects on testosterone very probably
diminish the most virulent of the dopamine surges that can
lead to addiction to power."  But Robertson is very clear
that the chances of being a bearer of "unmitigated p-power"
- without any s-power "coolant" present - is far greater for
males.  And, he adds, "this may be one reason why all the
notorious and massacring dictators of the world have been
men." (ibid pp. 234-5)

Other researchers have found similar results.  Echoing Gail
Collins' observation above, a recent study surveyed 10,000
individuals, in 52 countries, who had started a new
business. The researchers discovered that women were about
twenty percent more likely than men to start a business to
promote social or environmental change, as opposed to
personal gain.

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, there has been
much written about the relationship between male domination
and financial speculation.  Like Ian Robertson's argument
that the sex difference in power-seeking is related to the
hormone testosterone, other research has pointed to a
similar hormonal role in relation to risk taking behaviors.

There is strong evidence that women, on average, are more
risk averse than men - and that men, on average, tend to be
more prone to rash judgment calls based on over-confidence
(a psychological trait closely linked to risk-taking).
Other recent studies have shown that banks with more gender
diverse corporate boards fared better during and after the
financial crisis.

John Coates is a former financial trader who went back to
school and became a neuroscientist out of concern for the
damaging effects of the lust for money and power.  In an
article in the New York Times he described a trader's

"These past hours, the trader's testosterone levels have
been climbing. This steroid hormone, produced by men (and,
in lesser quantities, by women) primes the trader for the
challenge ahead, just as it does athletes preparing to
compete and male animals to fight. Rising levels increase
confidence and, crucially, appetite for risk. . .The stress
hormones adrenaline and cortisol surge out of the adrenal
glands, and the cortisol travels to the brain, where it
stimulates the release of dopamine, a chemical operating
along neural circuits known as the pleasure pathways. At
high levels, cortisol provides a nasty, stressful
experience. But in small amounts, in combination with
dopamine - one of the most addictive drugs known to the
human brain - it delivers a narcotic hit, a rush that
convinces traders that there is no other job in the world
[as rewarding]. . ."

He proposed one action that might ameliorate the problem:
". . . encourage a more even balance within banks among men
and women, young and old. Women and older men have a
fraction of the testosterone of young men, so if more of
them managed money, we could perhaps stabilize the markets."

Similarly, in discussing the results of a 2009 study
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, a researcher said:

"This is the first study showing that gender differences in
financial risk aversion have a biological basis, and that
differences in testosterone levels between individuals can
affect important aspects of economic behavior and career

Behavior, Biology, Culture, and Society

It is important to acknowledge the deep misgivings that many
on the political left and in the academic social science
disciplines have about the relationship between biology, sex
differences, and complex human behaviors such as power
seeking and risk taking.  These misgivings are due in part
to the understandable fear of the abuse of evolutionary
theory to support malevolent goals.  We are all too familiar
with the horrendous consequences of pseudo-scientific
ideologies in support of eugenics, Nazism, and racism.

However, there is also the problem of ideology and political
agendas.  Many on the organized left or in the disciplines
of sociology and anthropology perceive any hint of
biological causation for social behaviors as an assault on
basic principles, such as the deeply held belief that only
socioeconomic or cultural factors are responsible for
complex behaviors.

But science has advanced tremendously in the past several
decades.  This is as true of the biological sciences as it
is of physics and computer science.  Developments in the
cognitive and brain sciences have been especially rich.  New
imaging techniques now permit scientists to see exactly what
parts of the brain are involved in learning, memory,
addiction, desire, and other behaviors.  To ignore, deny, or
discount these developments, leaving them to those with
ulterior motives to exploit, will ultimately prove to be

Sandra Witelson of McMaster University has been studying the
human brain for decades.  A 2005 article in the Los Angeles
Times discussed some of her work on sex differences:

"Witelson is convinced that gender shapes the anatomy of
male and female brains in separate but equal ways beginning
at birth.  On average, she said, the brains of women and men
are neither better nor worse, but they are measurably
different. Men's brains, for instance, are typically bigger
- but on the whole, no smarter.

"What is astonishing to me," Witelson said, "is that it is
so obvious that there are sex differences in the brain and
these are likely to be translated into some cognitive
differences, because the brain helps us think and feel and
move and act. "Yet there is a large segment of the
population that wants to pretend this is not true.",0,6089068.story

Commenting more recently on this ongoing debate, the
neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine wrote:

"There are still those who believe that for women to become
equal, unisex must be the norm.   The biological reality,
however, is that there is no unisex brain.  The fear of
discrimination based on difference runs deep, and for many
years assumptions about sex differences went scientifically
unexamined for fear that women wouldn't be able to claim
equality with men.  But pretending that women and men are
the same, while doing a disservice to both men and women,
ultimately hurts women. . . It also ignores the different
ways that they process thoughts and therefore perceive what
is important." (The Female Brain, p. 160)

Donald W. Pfaff of Rockefeller University in New York City
has been studying the human brain for decades.  I heard him
speak last year at the New York Academy of Sciences.  He
exudes the air of an extremely meticulous and circumspect
scientist. These qualities are reflected in his most recent
book, Man and Woman: An Inside Story, in which he repeatedly
expresses a need to exercise caution when drawing
conclusions regarding the brain and behavior.  But the
following is one of his conclusions:

"All of [the cautions about drawing conclusions] having been
said, some evidence does point to believable psychological
differences between men and women . . . The most convincing
evidence, in my view, has to do with social relationships.
Males are interested in hierarchies and in power. . .

"Indeed, there are anatomical differences between men's and
women's brains, and some of them, theoretically, could
contribute to the psychological differences I just
discussed." (pp. 189-190)

And from an article published in Science Daily in 2008:

"What was once speculation is now being confirmed by
scientists: the brains of women and men are different in
more ways than one. Discoveries by scientists over the past
10 years have elucidated biological sex differences in brain
structure, chemistry and function. 'These variations occur
throughout the brain, in regions involved in language,
memory, emotion, vision, hearing and navigation,' explains
Larry Cahill, Ph.D. . . at the University of California,

Differences in the behaviors of men and women are present in
all societies and cultures. Scientists who study human
behavior generally agree that most complex behaviors result
from a combination of genes and environment, nature and
nurture. As three scientists have written:

"Unless you are a Creationist, you have to accept that
humans have been subject to the same processes of
evolutionary change as all other living things on earth.  A
full understanding of human nature therefore requires an
understanding of biological as well as sociological
processes.  Indeed, it is actually impossible to separate
the two.  We are products of an interaction between biology
and culture, or to put it in its more familiar guise, nature
and nurture, genes and environment.  To separate the two is
a false dichotomy." (Louise Barrett, Robin Dunbar, John
Lycett, Human Evolutionary Psychology, 2002 p. 2)

The Thatcher Effect

When discussing male/female power differences, skeptics
often ask "but what about women leaders like Margaret
Thatcher?"  As Ian Robertson's research points out, women
are not immune from the desire for p-power.  Rather, women
are far less likely than men to be "all" p-power and zero s-
power.  Thatcher may be one of the exceptions that proves
the rule.  As Robertson emphasizes, most individuals have
mixed needs for both p-power and s-power - it's just that on
average women are much more likely to be driven by the need
for social power.  And this is what makes the movement to
increase the proportion of women in collective decision-
making bodies - whether Congress or the Supreme Court - so

Gender balance has become an important rallying point for
organizations, such as the White House Project, that are
actively promoting female empowerment.  Research suggests
that a "critical mass" threshold of 30% is the approximate
point at which women begin to have a noticeable impact on
agenda setting and policy outcomes in collective leadership
bodies. (Sandra Grey, Women and Parliamentary Politics,
Australian National University, 2001}

This "critical mass" concept was what prompted the delegates
to the 1995 World Conference on Women to set 30% minimum
female representation in parliaments as their goal.  It's
perhaps the major reason that President Obama's historic
appointments of Sonia Sotamayor and Elena Kagan to the
Supreme Court were such significant political moves.

We can see how the concept of "critical mass" has played out
in other nations.  The near forty-percent level of women's
representation in the Nordic nations' parliaments puts those
decision-making bodies in an entirely different league than
the sub-twenty-percent level in the U.S.  The story of
Iceland's 2008 collapse due to the male-dominated banking
sector's foray into highly risky real estate investments is
illustrative.  After the financial melt-down threatened to
take down the entire country, women - who then occupied 33%
of Iceland's parliament - banded together, forced out the
former male-dominated government, and installed a new one
under the leadership of Prime Minister Johanna
Siguroardottir.  The new female-dominated government then
took decisive action to clean up the mess made by the
bankers and their government allies. Ian Robertson's point
that female dominant s-power tends to "dissolve" male
dominant p-power buttresses the case for "super-critical
mass" gender balanced decision-making bodies as one
important component of the struggle for more fair and just

The Future of History?

Even if many remain unconvinced about causal relationships
between behavioral gender differences and biology, there
should be no disagreement about the need to eliminate the
social, economic, and political gender inequalities that
persist.  If the organized left were to become more
proactive in promoting an agenda to accelerate the
empowerment of women, especially but not exclusively in the
political arena, we might discover that chipping away at
(and perhaps one day ending) male domination will positively
correlate with the enactment of more progressive
governmental, legal, social, and economic policies and
programs.  We can continue to debate the issue of innate
gender differences, but we should not need to debate the
importance or utility of winning full gender equality, thus
advancing the LEW Revolution and the movements for rights,
fairness, and justice.

There are other reasons for the organized left to prioritize
women's empowerment as a key part of the agenda for change.
The under-representation of women in leadership - whether in
government, unions, academic teams, or progressive and left
organizations - undermines the efficacy of social movements.
Under-representation of any group leads to failure to fully
utilize talent, the stifling of viewpoints, and inhibits the
ability to create movement solidarity.  As women represent
at least one-half of society, it is critical that leadership
bodies, organizing bodies, any decision-making body, reflect
that reality as much as possible.  It should be self-evident
that achieving such a goal will greatly enhance the left's
ability to mobilize and organize the vast majority of
society negatively impacted by our patriarchal institutions.

The agricultural and industrial social systems that have
dominated the world for the past five thousand years have
been exclusively patriarchies.  We don't know what will
happen when, and if, women achieve full equality.  But the
strong correlation between feminization and social progress
in societies throughout the world gives credence to the
notion that ending patriarchy will likely have a profound
impact on the future of history.  The findings of scientists
like Ian Robertson and Sandra Witelson strongly suggest that
the further empowerment of women will push societies in the
direction of cooperativeness, altruism, and compassion; away
from inequality, greed, and despotism.

[Marc Beallor has a long history of social justice activism,
including thirty years in organized labor.  He has a Master
of Science degree from the NYU Wagner School of Public

[Many thanks to the author for sharing this with Portside.]



Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web:

Frequently asked questions:


Search Portside archives:

Contribute to Portside:

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Search Archives

Search Archives

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


January 2020, Week 4
January 2020, Week 3
January 2020, Week 2
January 2020, Week 1
December 2019, Week 5
December 2019, Week 4
December 2019, Week 3
December 2019, Week 2
December 2019, Week 1
November 2019, Week 5
November 2019, Week 4
November 2019, Week 3
November 2019, Week 2
November 2019, Week 1
October 2019, Week 5
October 2019, Week 4
October 2019, Week 3
October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager