"Until recently, I worked at a feminist nonprofit. The founders were so assured in their politics that they placed the word "feminism" in the organization's name. This was when the work was a project-with no executive director, no board, no bylaws, and no expectation or even reason to uphold worker protections. Everybody was in it for the love of the mission, and it was wildly successful. As opportunities rolled in, the founders decided to institutionalize their feminist project by establishing a 501c3."
"I was the second staff member hired. The first, the organization's inaugural director, had sought to change the way gender was conceptualized within our work to move away from binary notions of gender, which should have served as a guide for how the organization could pursue political education and develop itself towards its mission. But over time, and with new leadership, politics were treated more as an impediment than as a part of our mission."
The organization began as an informal feminist project named explicitly for feminism, operating without formal governance, and driven by mission commitment. Institutionalization into a 501c3 followed as opportunities grew. Leadership changes shifted priorities; initial efforts to reconceptualize gender away from binaries gave way to treating politics as an impediment. Material commitments to Black Lives Matter, sustained disability justice praxis, and clear stances against apartheid, genocide, and settler colonialism were resisted. A proposal to rename the organization to reflect focus on careered, cisgender women was rejected. Persistent value-leadership gaps manifested in unpaid executive duties and dysfunctional communication among staff.
Read at Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]