More on Choice and Nature vs. Nurture
The issue of men at MWF is a hot button. Invite men to the board? Invest in men and boys through grantmaking?
I know it is a hot button because most people I meet make sure I know their opinions, which inevitably fall into one of four camps.
1. Give women and girls the opportunity to define their fund "first" before we invite men to contribute. In a combined situation, women will defer to men, losing the empowerment that the institution stands for.
- or -
We need a level playing field first, so invest in women and girls primarily.
2. Live the equality and diverity value that we preach.
- or -
Let us not create a false environment where women and girls succeed on thier own; then expect them to succeed in a environment that they have no experience negotiating.
My personal opinion (and though being the ED, my personal opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the organization) is the latter. If we believe in feminism, we must believe that women have the natural ability to compete in an environment with men and that we must give them the ability to choose whether or not to do that. We can not make that decision for them.
That is not to say that we're not battling societal norms and cultural baggage along the way and that some nurturing is required.
About Me
- Eli Stefanski
- I am Eli The Chef -- social innovator, systems thinker, and architect of all things edible. I believe unbridled creativity will make the world a better place. I love a good design challenge, from building better philanthropic systems to rethinking how work gets done.
3 comments:
I agree--there is room for men at a women's fund. Truth is, men have always been involved, as donors, volunteers, contractors and as staff at the organizations that we fund. Maybe not all of these roles are at the leadership level, but some are. Oh, and don’t forget the men who support women’s organizations through their companies (as sponsors, etc.) As women, I think we shouldn't assume that if men get more involved, they are going to make a move to take over (intentionally or unintentionally). In the context of working with men, maybe the right word isn’t ‘compete’ but ‘work with.’ We need to trust that if we feel that men are taking our direction off course, then we women have the skills and grit to steer it back. The risk of things going astray is way less than the upside -- which is men contributing in ways that help the cause and achieving our goals faster and in a bigger way.
Ned, what's your take on this??
I agree on the latter. There is a time and a place for girls or women to have their own space. However, when it comes to the business world and the opportunity to really make social change, I would have to agree that women are strong enough to stand up and be leaders in this equal playing field. Also, remember men have daughters and they are very involved in their lives and want to support and volunteer for work that affects them. :-)
This is a tough one. I can see three other ways to look at it:
1) Apply the following rule: Would it be ok to have a Maine Men's Foundation that excluded women? How about a Maine Italian Foundation that excluded the French? Etc. If you are not comfortable with a Men's Clubs excluding women, then you should not be in favor of Women's Clubs excluding men.
OR
2) There are some categories of historically disadvantaged groups for whom *temporary* exclusivity is justified until the groups have reached some sort of parity with groups that have not been disadvantaged. This could apply to women, some ethnic minorities, etc.
OR
3) There are some fundamental differences in wiring (or plumbing) that justify same-group environments (bathrooms in the case of plumbing). Most people would object to the idea that there is different wiring among different ethnic groups, but there is increased evidence for the idea that there is different wiring among men and women.
Post a Comment