Staff revolt as 'non-feminist' weapons firm CEO hired to run Refuge

It’s Tommy this and Tommy that and “Chuck ‘im out, the brute!”

My personal view - yes DV it is a feminist issue and if you want to make systemic change rather than just dealing with individuals who are affected, then you need to look at the causes. And I think it would be very difficult to be in this charity without identifying strongly as a feminist. Not least because all staff members feel very strongly about it.

My personal view of this woman - sure let her be on the Board, but to make her Chair was at the very least an error of judgement.

Also acknowledge there are issues about the charity sector which aren't brilliant.

I really strongly feel that at least some people on the board should have experience of DV and aren't just another person on the Big Charity merry go round, just like in the healthcare sector you are supposed to have patient involvement at all levels, including board level. Skills are important but so is centring the needs of the users of the service. And sometimes those needs get forgotten.

I accept that this woman was a poor choice, but I can believe that she was in part motivated to become a DV campaigner by the awful death of her friend. And I do think there are a lot of weird things about this whole situation.

There are lots of decent women who don't self define as feminists, and a lot who do but don't really care that much about women and girls. I don't agree it's that simple. Everyone should be assessed on their own merits.

And I don't have the greatest opinion of the charity sector as a whole, and have also worked in it.

I agree it's a PR blunder for the Chair to be involved in the arms trade. It was more about her as a person, on her own merits.

this is really interesting I think, and lots of issues here. (am in the sector).

I have really mixed views about the appointment of this person as the Chair, but it seems at the very least as though they (the Board) really misjudged the strength of feeling of the staff members and their power/ability to rock the boat.

And yes, I agree with pp - domestic abuse is a feminist issue (as domestic violence is a gender based crime) so I can't see how anyone can be on the Board who doesn't agree with that viewpoint. I know also that the staff of these charities feel so strongly about this. Rightly in my view - I don't see how anyone could be the chair of this charity without identifying as a feminist.

I don't necessarily feel that a trustee needs to have experience of DV to be on the Board actually - there are lots of skills that are more important in this case, although that would help (the Chair of my charity does not have experience of our cause either).

But it seems that having a person who works in the arms trade is at least a major PR blunder. I would personally not want someone who works in the arms trade running my organisation - I'd have serious doubts about their morals and ethics. I really would.

@Theskyisblueithink It's not a purity spiral. Refuge is a feminist organisation, it's not neutral. While no two feminist organisations are neutral, they all more or less believe that the causes of violence against women are gender-based, structural, and preventable. That's not a neutral position.

Obviously anyone seeking services would be treated in a completely non-judgemental way, but the organisation itself isn't neutral.

What if a survivor comes from a defence company background?

Will they be turned away and denied support?

It's too purity spiral. A DA charity should be completely non judgemental and completely neutral.

I would need to know more.

Not a feminist — what does she mean? Given that a lot who’ll say they are feminists will also say twaw... this means nothing. Definitions needed.

Weapons company — again, depends. War and conflict are extremely complicated and reducing collateral damage may be a laudable aim.

Appointment process — if correct processes were used, I don’t see an issue.

Corporatisation of the sector — May well be an issue but it is not necessarily limited to this woman’s appointment.

More info needed.

For me personally, it was about her "not being a feminist" which is one of the reasons given for them wanting her to resign. I can understand her wanting to be involved in DV services if her best friend was brutally murdered by her husband, and I do think that kind of human experience is important. Which is why I wanted the full details.

I agree there is a conflict of interest with the industry she is in. Who appointed her? Presumably they are fully aware of her background in arms sales. They can't just kick her out now she is there, so I'm not sure what they are expecting to happen.

It is all quite odd - why was Dame Stella Rimington of MI5 involved, too? Was she a trustee at the same time she was in MI5, and why is her name public on this if she is a "former trustee" and not a current one?

The UK arms trade is a massively contraversial topic.

I'm really surprised at so many posters saying so what.

And even more at the idea that posters are trying to bully her out of her job (by having an online chat) and that as she's successful in a male dominated industry, the feminist thing to do is turn a blind eye to the (to me) obvious issues with someone involved in the arms trade having this role.

MRAs have an angle that feminists think women can do no wrong. This thread supports their view, to my mind.

I don't know much of the history but I do think having someone involved in any arms sales is bad PR for a charity such as this.

If they had been in the military i.e. served that would be different, but weapons technology is not the fluffiest arena and PR does matter with charities.

So, for perhaps superficial reasons, I am rather surprised by this.

Aesop- from the op

'Britain's best known domestic violence charity is in turmoil over the appointment of a woman who runs a weapons technology company as its new chairman.

The senior management team at Refuge are demanding the resignation of Hetti Barkworth-Nanton over her role as chief executive of a Ministry of Defence spin-off company that has developed silent ammunition, hand grenades and a new type of explosive.'

How on earth is it a different question? It is the role point of the thread.

But you appear to feel it's constructive to carry on taking pot shots at other women. And I am not letting that slide. So I suggest you stop doing it, and we draw a line under it, and have a respectful discussion. I'm not the only person whose back you got up.

Being concerned about the UK arms trade and whether those involved are an ethical match

That is a different question.

to imply that this was all about a pile on or being on a hight horse could themselve have done this (and read the whole article) but felt happier sitting at her keyboard thinking personal insults were the way to response to a crucial issue for feminists / the provivision of women only service.

No, Stumbledin it was you who was contemptuous of the views of others. So look to yourself first. As I said, I am a DV survivor and I feel very strongly that people involved in DV services should understand the human impact of DV. Something you also sneered at.

I do understand the conflict of interest here but I feel your sanctimonious tone is deeply unhelpful, and it's not the first time I've ever thought that. So yes, you can get off your high horse.

Being concerned about the UK arms trade and whether those involved are an ethical match for a charity like refuge is a 'purity spiral' now is it?

Interesting.

Having seen the quotes from staff there do appear to be genuine concerns with the management of the charity, but I stand by my comments before OP supplied those. I do think a lot of charity stuff is corporate bollocks anyway. The big charities get local or national contracts and take services away from smaller ones who can better provide person-centred services and care about the people who need them.

Why is being involved in the defence industry automatically non-feminist? Also ‘feminism’ carries a lot of baggage as a word which means a lot of women who are fighting for women’s right won’t call themselves feminists. We know a lot of people call themselves feminists are nothing if the sort.

I agree with others who express concern that this is about purity spirals.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/25/uk-arms-trade-repressive-regimes

'In 2018, the UK sold £173m worth of arms to states on the Foreign Office list of “human rights priority countries” – nations identified as having human rights issues.

But last year this increased to £849m, an increase of 390%.'

'I'm more frustrated by people who look down their noses at military technology whilst benefiting from the protections/deterrent it provides our society. '

Arms are one of the UK big exports. Our weapons have been sold to /ended up in the hands of people who have caused serious suffering.

Yes I have a problem with that.

Telling us we aren't supporting women because we'd like some further information about what the exact problem with this woman was? When many people who call themselves "feminists", including many women who are high level in women's organisations are woke and quite happy to chuck women and girls under the bus.

^The high horse comment made me twitch.
Men have said that to me to shut me up. Is it often directed at men?^

Look at what OP said to women she didn't agree with, before you criticise them. I thought her patronising and dismissive comments were uncalled for. That's often directed at women, too.