Transition House, a 30 year old domestic violence shelter in Boston is currently conducting a gender neutral search for an Executive Director, hiring a man into the position on an interim basis.
The decision has spurred much controversy as feminist activists contend that bringing men into the top leadership positions may send the wrong message to the community the shelter is trying to serve.
The controversy is covered in depth in an article by WeNews correspondant, Courtney Martin.
Compelling arguments can be made on both sides. One, the need to have strong leadership...not just moral and iconic but strong business leadership...at the helm to ensure the shelter continues to provide its services is one that rationally should not be tied to gender. Just get the best person for the job.
But, there is the issue of the iconic status of a woman at the top. Is it relevant to those receiving services that the organization is led by strong women? Is part of the function of the organization not just to provide shelter, but also to provide examples of the status, power, responsibility and achievement that can be made available to women working their way out of abusive situations?
I'm not so sure that it is. Coming from health care and working with my share of both men and women coming from traumatic experiences, I don't recall any of them asking or even having the faintest concern regarding the gender of our administration.
Maybe from a distance, to the larger community or to women in general it will be significant, but I think in the throes of extracting oneself from the traumatic situation it probably doesn't even land on the radar screen.
So, does the Shelter have a responsbility to the larger community to maintain the all female leadership (even while using male counselors) for the symbolic value for women at large?
Another issue that I can see has some emotional weight with activists is that, now that the women have done the down-in-the-trenches hard grass roots work of building the organization, some resent that men may now more eager to step in.
How to balance the 'you weren't there when we really needed your help' with 'you really could provide strong leadership to us now that we are at the level we have achieved' is going to be tricky territory.
Bottom line: Can you ignore that you do have to serve the bottom line? Or do you? Does placing the bottom line as a central focus risk marginalizing women in the end?
Article comments
1 - Laura Young
insightful and interesting comment on this post at my blog...
"Is what centers like Transition House are trying to do (I spent a day a week of my high school years in their Providence sister house) really about men verses women? protecting women from men?
And of course the bottom line is important, taken in balance with other things (just to keep the place open!), but why are we assuming that a man is better for the bottom line?
And does anyone else read alot of outdated gender assumptions in the arguments of the original founders? Men change the dynamics in the room, they say / Women leaders of the org may not stand up to get their points across. And who is that about? Sorry, but I have never understood this assumption that women can only express themselves confidently in woman-only environments. To me, that's about women. It's not easy, but I've been in some scary boardrooms and when you erase you own assumption that men are somehow better equipped, you can lead the way. And yes, they will listen. And follow. In my experience, men are people too. :-)
I understand the symbolism of a woman leading the org, for the women it serves. So secretly I hope the best candidate who stands for it is a woman. But if the best person truly is a man -- maybe that's an even stronger symbol of where we've gotten to on this issue and what incredible work those women who started these centers 30 years ago have done. The high profile advocate for this woman's shelter -- for an end to domestic violence -- is a man. Wow, that's cool. We really all are in this together.
And as for the "where were you when we started this" and why are you here now that it pays better deal, I have no patience. Who is this about? The women who started the org or the women it serves? You bravely worked for years to persuade men this was important and they should join you in condemning domestic violence, and now that you've persuaded them you don't want their involvement? What do you do when you try to change the world just a little bit..and it works?
I still secretly hope the best person is a woman, but I also believe the best way to serve the centers' clients is to choose the best person.
And I think the article may be on to something- this may be a generational shift. And a good one, I hope.
2 - Teri In Cali
I don't think it matters what gender the Executive Director is, so much as whether or not the organization is serving it's greatest good. I'm disturbed by the blatant gender bias in Martin's piece, as well as the About Women letter. I'd like to know if there is a domestic violence shelter for men and children in that town. I'd guess not, since the Violence Against Women Act prevents shelters from getting federal funding to help men. I think it's about time we looked into domestic violence for what it really is, and addressed the fact that women batter too, and that mothers are more likely than fathers to abuse children. Yes, it might be good if a man is Director, but only if he finds a way to serve the many fathers and children who now have virtually nowhere to turn.
Teri
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/