Real-life Advocating for Gender Equity
We haven’t posted a blog in this format before but there’s a first time for everything. This week, an open letter of sorts: an email. I (Lauren) actually sent this message to people I respect within an organization I value. There was a profound failure of leadership, but there is also opportunity for correction. My intent is for this to be a calling in, rather than a calling out.
Earlier this week, I attended a meeting about a women’s group that I thought would be, at least, led by a woman. This group is affiliated with an organization with which I have been involved for several years and in which I often lead. Yet it is also an organization that has failed to establish, cultivate, or celebrate female leaders. After Saturday’s meeting, I sent the following email to the organizers. I have redacted all identifying information as this conversation is ongoing. My hope was to strongly advocate for better choices, especially with regard to gender equity (or, minimally, parity), while also committing to a tone of grace and committing to the shared work of improving the organization. I also hope that this serves as a kind of example of how we can advocate by saying something. Personally, I found this uncomfortable but necessary. I would love to know how you have advocated or what communication pathways and practices you have found successful.
Dear [Friends],
First of all, thank you for making the time to plan and lead a meeting about the [women’s group] Saturday morning. I am excited about new directions for the group. However, I’m writing to articulate some concerns over the facilitation of the meeting. Frankly, I’ve had a lot of conversations about it since Saturday (and not exclusively with the people you’d perhaps imagine) and every conversation has been about facilitation choices and how they distracted from the goals of the gathering. I feel fairly confident that this is not what you would have wanted and, instead, I’m optimistic that you wanted the meeting to focus on women’s formation and relationships. To that end, here are some of my observations.
A woman leading would have communicated the value of women to the other women present. I want to sit under leaders who are women and to be part of an organization that cultivates women as leaders. I attended that meeting in part because I was eager to hear how that would happen. This has been the single most common topic in my conversations subsequent to Saturday’s meeting. In a meeting that was supposed to be about the goals, needs, experiences, and opportunities of women in our group, we physically, ideologically, and symbolically centered a man. There was an element of surprise, too, because [woman’s name] coordinated and invited us to the meeting. My assumption was that the meeting would be facilitated by one of the women who has led the group in the past, by [woman’s name] as a representative of the Strategic Leadership Team, or some combination. Most spaces in [organization’s name] center men, and I understand the reasons for that. This was an opportunity for men to listen and to create—rather than occupy—space for women.
The style of interaction stifled, rather than enhanced, conversation and idea generation. The Facebook invitation said, “Our next step in this process is to hear from YOU…” It took nearly one hour of the meeting to get to the point where women added substantively to the conversation. The lengthy description of the reorganization was misplaced—a shorter summary with specific salience to that gathering would have felt more relevant and would have teed up the ensuing conversations. Additionally, the question-and-answer style did not spark creativity or flow. The interactive style (facilitator questions, participant responds, facilitator summarizes and takes note, facilitator poses next question) operated more like a series of individual conversations (with the male facilitator) than an opportunity for the women to collaboratively address their goals. While I use a generalization with caution and this is not a statement of value, data suggest that women tend to interact differently than do men: women are motivated by purpose and meaning, emotions are welcome and validated in decision-making processes, hierarchies flatten, and collaborative practices replace positional leadership. Some examples of practices that tend to appeal to women: movement, (structured) group conversation, crosstalk, or shared leadership. None of these practices were present on Saturday.
The meeting structure excluded some ideas. This is a big deal. There was at least one person who expressed privately her concern that her ideas or contributions wouldn’t be valued in that setting. Again, she said, she didn’t know the meeting would be led by a man and that she was afraid her ideas were too tangential to such a structured setting. We should consider our facilitation choices very carefully when the nature of a gathering ostensibly designed to be inclusive is experienced as the opposite.
Some voices were entirely unrepresented. If I remember correctly, there were no single mothers at the meeting on Saturday. Please be sure to reach out to them directly for their input. I will happily help with this. Amidst what we heard on Saturday, we did not hear from moms and women who have an additional structural impediment to fellowship. Let’s eliminate barriers to their entry as much as is possible. That starts with learning about what they need and want.
Women’s unique contributions to [organization] shouldn’t have to look like those of men. Apart from the choice of facilitator, this has been the number one thing that has emerged in conversations since Saturday. To preface, I am sure the intent was not to devalue the work or contributions of women to our [organization] and to our community. I know you all enough to know that is not the intent. But it has become clear that establishing “men’s work” (setting aside this troubling distinction for now) like the building work day and postulating that it should have an equivalent in the women’s [group] was an unhelpful comparison. Again, I know that was not the intent. It was repeatedly understood that way, especially by people who consistently carry out “women’s work” (e.g., meals, rides, childcare, planning, hosting) as part of their day-to-day lives. Similarly, when the question arose about how women could use their [group] to connect more to the community, the question came off as tone deaf considering the established record of service just among the women in that room.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and for all that you’re doing to help the community of women here flourish. Please let me know how I can contribute to that mission and let me know if you have any questions.
Warm regards,
Lauren