Read on Twitter
I applaud @melindagates and @mackenziebezos for their commitment to gender equality. But I worry their approach will prove damaging to women's movements and activists. Why? 1/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2020/06/16/mackenzie-bezos-and-melinda-gates-team-up-on-30-million-gender-equity-contest/
A competition for $30 million - the idea that one or a group of women's organizations should "win" over others - is detrimental to the way social movements operate. 2/
Study after study shows that autonomous feminist movements are the key factor in driving policy and cultural change on womenâs rights - on violence against women, labor rights, political participation, reproductive rights. 3/ https://ssir.org/articles/entry/philanthropy_for_the_womens_movement_not_just_empowerment
This is done through painstaking coalition building, debates and agreement on strategy, 'teach ins' and trainings, community organizing, and support to activists. 4/
Feminist coalitions around the world have driven change against formidable odds. The wildly effective Argentine women's rights and reproductive rights movement, decades in the making, is a brilliant example. 5/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/world/americas/abortion-argentina.html
The kind of change social movements seek takes time, and it requires building broad alliances. It may not require much "innovation" - relying instead on marches, sit ins, rallies, petitions, songs and speeches... what we have seen these past few weeks on our streets. 6/
Common funding practices run counter to the organizing principles of social movements, and actually damage them. Stringent measurement requirements, especially those that require proof of impact over a short time period ("quick wins"), hurt organizing. 7/ http://cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/funding-empowerment-us-foundations-and-global-gender-equality/6EC9796DBA3A4CC5171E4E520714C3BE
They force organizations to privilege short term results over long term structural change. They lead to mission drift. They also hamper organizations' capacity to be nimble and responsive to changing situations. 8/
There is ample evidence of the damaging impact of short-term "project funding" on feminist movements. See for example this incredible study on what happened to the vibrant Nicaraguan feminist movement (paywall). 9/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11266-012-9348-z
Gates' and Bezos' focus on âinnovativeâ ideas risks sidelining longstanding social movements, who are rooted in and accountable to their communities. Plenty of evidence challenges the notion that innovation is, in and of itself, a panacea. 10/ https://ssir.org/articles/entry/innovation_is_not_the_holy_grail
Further, forcing groups to compete with each other for the same project-based funding-rather than encouraging them to use the $$ to collaborate and strategize with fellow movement members - disincentivizes collective action and ruptures partnerships. 11/ https://ssir.org/articles/entry/philanthropy_for_the_womens_movement_not_just_empowerment
I urge @melindagates and Bezos to: examinehow this competition will affect autonomous feminist movements; reduce the priority given to "innovation" in their scoring; ensure that the $30M is flexible, long-term funding that supports movements' existing plans and priorities. /12
