Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Women's Room?

By Courtney E. Martin, Women's eNews. Posted August 23, 2005.


One of America's oldest domestic violence shelters has opened a gender-neutral search for a new director -- and hired a man in the interim. Some feminists are far from happy.
Advertisement

Transition House, New England's first battered women's shelter, has always been known for its cutting edge work helping women and children escape abusive homes.

Recently, however, the Boston-based 30-year-old organization has set a precedent that makes some feminist activists uncomfortable. The board has not only hired a man as the interim executive director, but they are doing a gender-neutral search for a permanent hire set to conclude August 30th.

About Women, a collective of psychologists and social workers who were instrumental in creating shelters (including Transition House itself) in the 1970s, see this as step in the wrong direction. They wrote the board of Transition House a letter last October protesting what they called a "flagrant violation" of the organization's founding principles to establish a space where "women could feel safe from male intrusion and could openly unburden themselves of the experiences of male violence they had undergone without fear of censure, criticism or inhibition by male presence."

"I fear it's becoming about the bottom line, not helping women," Karen Schneiderman, one of the women in the collective, said.

The Board President of Transition House, Dr. Nanette Veilleux, argued that the bottom line is, indeed, central to their search. "As money shrinks, our E.D. has to be many, many things: developer, supervisor of programming, marketer," she said. "We need to find the most qualified person for the job, so we go into these searches with a gender neutral perspective."

The battle over the next director of Transition House has got activists in the shelter system questioning whether embracing male leadership is the next logical step in the progress of the shelter movement or a violation of its mission to protect and treat women and children affected by domestic violence. They question whether the decision will change hiring practices for the other 2,000 shelters across the country. Activists also wonder whether hiring a man as a shelter director will ultimately serve the best interests of the women and children fleeing violence and abuse in their homes.

Men in Various Capacities

Men, in fact, have been working in various capacities in the "DV community," as those on the inside call it, since the early 1980s. Veilleux reports that Transition House has had many men over the years who work closely with residents, such as counselors, health care providers and cleaning-cooking staff. They had much more contact, in fact, than the new executive director will.

"I spend my time in the administrative offices, which are in a completely separate location from the actual shelter," William Stanton, the interim director of transition house, said. "In truth, my contact with the residents is limited."

Most shelter executive directors, like Stanton, report that the majority of their work is administrative as opposed to direct service. Their impact on the residents, therefore, isn't interpersonal, as much as structural, through the type of programming established, shelter policy, and the state of the facility as a result of fund-raising.

Nonetheless, says Rita Smith, executive director of the Denver-based National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, argues that the symbolic importance of a director within a given shelter is significant.

"When you do a gender-blind search, you are assuming that women in general have reached some state of equality that may not be true," she said. "They are certainly not taking into consideration that seeing women in powerful roles impacts the victims of abuse and certainly influences their daughters and sons."


Digg!

Courtney E. Martin is a writer, teacher, and filmmaker living in Brooklyn. She is currently working on a book on the drive for perfection among young women (Simon and Schuster, fall 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Common sense, please!
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 23, 2005 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The interviewers should be weeding out pretenders who see it as a high-paying career making money out of domestic violence from caring applicants with a personal sense of a mission against violence. Whether the applicant is a woman or man really doesn't matter.
Some women have trouble communicating if the boss is a man? Give the staff a quick course in self-assertiveness and communication. We feminists don't like it when women are excluded from jobs because men aren't comfortable talking to them! Certainly, the interviewers should be not hire a male applicant who does have an air of 'entitlement' about him, and expects people to defer without discussion. Nor should they hire a woman with that attitude.
The theoretical male applicant for the job could be transexual or homosexual, or simply the caring brother of a woman whose boyfriend used to beat her until her brother found out and helped her escape. He could be a former school board leader with excellent administrative skills and a knack for listening.
The theoretical female applicant could be a business major who hit the glass ceiling at a major corporation and has no particular interest in the cause, just in establishing herself as the head honchette in an organization.

One's personality and abilities are not tied to one's gonads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Common sense, please! Posted by: JoeEbola
Give them the right to vote and make decisions
Posted by: fenster on Aug 23, 2005 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh wait. They already have that. And the first thing women do when they obtain positions of power is to discriminate against men. Hohum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

assumptions
Posted by: xenacat on Aug 23, 2005 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DV shelters are really the last place one should be hiring a careerist with little interest - except finanical - in what the victims have suffered. No, most men do not understand just how frightening it is for these women just to have even the most benevolent man anywhere near them. Also disturbing is implication that there are not enough qualified women to fill administrative posts and so a man must be considered. This isn't about discriminating against men in the workplace, it is about considering the needs of the DV victims first and foremost. This is the point that is lost here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: assumptions Posted by: crazyquilt
» RE: assumptions Posted by: crazyquilt
» RE: assumptions Posted by: xenacat
» pzzp Posted by: pzzp
womans shelters
Posted by: davy on Aug 23, 2005 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crazy huh,

I'm a man who just went through interviews in Wick Scotland for a post to promote mens health.

They hired a woman :)

isn't life strange

Davy Jones the highlands of Scotland

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Going Institutional
Posted by: mmnichols on Aug 23, 2005 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am afraid that as the way with all popular movements, the domestic violence movement is going from a bottom up control paradigm to a top down paradigm. This always happens and with it a loss of recognition of the purpose of the orginal vision. One need only look at the various religions as an example. Both the Christian religion and Islam were founded on the prinicple of equality and self-determination. They have morphed into top down institutions that have been used by many to exploit people. I am sorry to see this movement being turned into the top down type, it means it will no longer be responsible to the original goals of the founders, to help people find a safe place. It will now be more about other things. When a person's salary is dependant upon their keeping the problem going so as not to lose their salary the focus shifts. Just one example of this is medicine, now that millions of dollars can be made in research, now many cures have been found? In politics, now that one can get rich by just taking the money, how many policies have been instituted that actually help people? So on it goes. Having worked in the field of domestic violence as a program director I can say that I was involved in providing help to both sides of the equation, but after a while I realized that my major focus shifted from helping people to other things. I had to report to the courts and probation officers about the clients' activities, this put me in a dual relationship in that I had two loyalities, and my livelihood depended upon my being most concerned about reporting on the clients' behavior. This put the clients' needs behind my own. I struggled with this often and over time I simply left the situation. I am not sure how many people want to be involved in dealing with domestic violence, it is very hard to do. Then add the struggle of conflicting agenda and you have a volatile situation in the making. I would be looking for someone who is able to see their own agenda, and be clear an honest about it before I put them into a sitation that requires them to understand the client base, and to keep the original purpose in clear view. It would in fact be good if we could have more of this type of honest personal review if Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the domestic violence movement Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: the domestic violence movement Posted by: michele0726
» thank you Posted by: Olympiada
I think the real issue is not whether the directors are male or female,
Posted by: Olympiada on Aug 23, 2005 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree with this. Not only have I worked at a 'domestic violence' shelter, I also had to call the police twice when my ex husband was violent with me. In both of those experiences, both the family shelter, and the local police department, I was helped by very loving men. If we look at men as the enemy, we are contributing to the problem, not the solution, as my priest would say. Most men that are violent have not had a strong father figure in their lives that loved them and showed them the ropes. There is a book, I forgot the name, but about a boy's doll. Now this does not really have to do with the executive director of a dv shelter, but nevertheless, oh yes William's Doll. Ok I think it would do some good for women and children to see men in a positive, and nurturing and loving role. It would help to counteract the hate that is sure to grow in their souls, the women and children who have been abused, as a result of being abused. I do not think it is good to polarize this gender thing. At least for Christians, there is neither male nor female in Jesus Christ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "At least for Christians" Posted by: commentleslie
» The Scholars and the Goddess Posted by: Olympiada
Been There...
Posted by: bambic on Aug 23, 2005 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having been a victim of domestic violence myself, both in California and Arkansas, I can honestly say I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that a woman was the person at the top. Of course, the logical side of my brain knows that there are many, many wonderful, caring men out there who are qualified to hold the job, but in this particular situation, why not hire one of the many, many qualified women due to the fact that most of the victims (clients, whatever) suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and why not make their adjustment back into a functional life a little easier by hiring one of our own kind? I think having men in as speakers, lecturers, etc., is crucial in letting these abused women know that not all men are monsters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Been There... Posted by: jimsenter
» RE: Been There... Posted by: smarie2003
» RE: Been There... Posted by: michele0726
Imagine the women and men actually working together...
Posted by: Houyhnhnm on Aug 23, 2005 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mostly I found these women guilty of the very same
discrimination that they complain so bitterly about. It doesn't appear they've given consideration that "30 years ago," a few of these men might have even been in, or just out of, diapers.

Sure, having women in these positions sends a message, but opening their minds would also send a powerful message.

What about this line of thinking? Then can only women be gynecologists? Can only women oncologists understand breast cancer? such bias is so completely narrow, it is actually dangerous. Women's "advocacy" groups railed against breast cancer prevention trials, and sued against trials for bone marrow transplant to proceed as a therapy for breast cancer (those clinical trials groups are overwhelmingly male). The prevention trials have turned out overwhelmingly positive - in the women's favor, while the transplant trials nearly ground to a halt and took many years to show the horrible detriment to women. So much for "advocacy."

Some days, I consider to just let them suffer the consequences of their self-righteousness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you were attacked by a black person, should you be shielded from black people?
Posted by: todddixon on Aug 23, 2005 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A person who is attacked by an individual has no reason to assume that all individuals who share common traits such as gender, colour, regilion, etc. are all guilty of the crime. Imagine if there were "safe-houses" from people who had been mugged by a black person. "Sorry, only white people are allowed to work here. They fear you." That the notion of men as a common enemy is continually given credibility in this day and age is a clear reminder that there is no room for rational debate in our PC world. Let's cut the shit, give the guy a chance, and move on to helping people who need help.

Jeez!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry
Posted by: mmnichols on Aug 24, 2005 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read where I put this post and realized I put it in the wrong section. I see that you do get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]