What does it mean to fund movements in ways that centre dignity, equity, and trust? Who decides what is urgent? Where do we go when there are no right answers? In this edition of #NoRightAnswers, Sharanya Sekaram joins Vandita Morarka for a deep, honest conversation on what it means to resource feminist work with care, integrity, and political clarity. #NoRightAnswers is a conversation series for feminists to come together and hold space for the questions that don’t have easy answers, especially those that are cyclically stuck or often avoided in feminist work. Together, we unpack ethical trade-offs, power dynamics, and how funding frameworks shape the futures of our movements.
More Than Money: What Is Resourcing?
We began with a foundational question: What does resourcing mean in feminist movements today? Sharanya drew a critical distinction: resourcing is not just fundraising. While fundraising focuses on monetary support, resourcing includes networks, lived experience, legal infrastructure, care, mentorship, social capital and access to decision-making spaces. Unfortunately, these forms of resourcing are often unnamed and unfunded.
“…rather than thinking about what the movement needs, what we need, what we can offer, we are shaping our work towards what the funders are telling us they can fund. And then that leads to us competing with each other.” – Sharanya Sekaram
This shift in framing challenges the funding-centric narrative that often dominates NGO and philanthropic spaces. Sharanya described how the depoliticisation of movement work occurs when organisations shape their work to fit the funding metrics, rather than respond to the needs of their communities. The NGO-isation of movement-building has taught us to fit our work into fundable boxes, even when it does not serve the community’s needs.
Ethical Trade-Offs and the Cost of Survival
We see that many feminist organisations today are often forced to compete for the pocket change of billionaires, leading to ethical compromises that weigh heavily on values-based work.
Sharanya shared examples of trade-offs that many of us may be familiar with:
- Accepting money from institutions that historically created or uphold systems of oppression (e.g., colonial governments or multinational corporations).
- Choosing between funding survival vs. staying true to one’s politics.
- Having to present impact in quantifiable metrics that erase lived realities and long-term transformation.
Vandita highlighted the popularly emerging financial instruments in feminist spaces, like development impact bonds, mutual funds for social development, and impact investing. These models, while appealing to funders, risk flattening feminist work into metrics that erase its relational, long-term, and transformative nature. These systems demand proof of impact per dollar. But feminist work isn’t measurable that way. These new financial models—dollar-per-impact—can be deeply limiting. This discussion also highlighted caution around over-reliance on consulting models, and conversations about the pressures of visibility–how social media performance is often mistaken for organisational impact, and how it creates barriers for smaller or community-led efforts.
Vandita also added that often, survival becomes the driver. When payroll is on the line, long-term impact often gets deprioritised.
“I might feel that another organisation is better placed for this work. But I also know if we don’t get this fund, we can’t pay salaries.” – Vandita Morarka
Who decides what gets funded?
We returned to a core tension: Who defines what’s urgent? A participant shared their observations and put forth a question: We may call it decolonising or feminist funding, but who gets to decide what is urgent enough for funding? What does that mean for people whose daily lives are a constant emergency, but whose realities don’t fit into humanitarian funding frameworks? Others shared how grassroots mutual aid models like the Trans Community Kitchens have emerged to fill these gaps. But questions remain about their sustainability in an ecosystem designed around formal funding structures.
…And Who Gets Left Out?
A powerful thread ran through the discussion on the communities that are invisible to funders, like the Dalit, trans, rural, Indigenous, and Roma communities, who are rarely considered fundable. Their work is often viewed as too radical, too informal, or simply not measurable, and the funder frame defines legitimacy, which leaves many out.
“There’s an unorganised sector of feminist work, similar to the unorganised labour sector. Like Dalit communities in India, where I come from, who aren’t even considered part of the formal labour force. So, who is not even considered ‘good enough’ for gender equality work? Whose movement isn’t seen as a movement, but just informal community work that never gets recognised?” – A Participant
Participants also shared that the state criminalisation and local philanthropy politics in regions like South Asia and Latin America are further narrowing the space for resourcing rights-based work.
Power, Intermediaries, and Institutions
The conversation also touched upon the role of intermediaries like the UN and large CSOs. While these actors often set the tone for inclusion, they do not always share decision-making power. Participants reflected on the UN and other intermediaries advocating for inclusion, but often failing to share real power. Many large CSOs sometimes hold more money than governments and still compete within the same limited ecosystem. At the same time, consortia and multi-stakeholder partnerships are being framed as solutions, but they often end up reinforcing existing hierarchies or even creating new ones! There is a power dynamic in funding: funding decisions are not neutral–they are deeply political. The private sector’s influence in philanthropy shapes what’s seen as valid or scalable work. Philanthropies decide what’s relevant. But it leaves us with a question: Where is the accountability for that power?
Women’s Funds: Still Relevant?
“In the face of so many critiques, what role should women’s funds play today?” – Vandita Morarka
Sharanya, speaking from her role at FRIDA, reflected on how women’s funds offered safety, solidarity, and capacity in her early organising. The takeaway? Hierarchy isn’t the problem. It is how we build and use it that matters. There is a call for feminist funds to centre collaboration, transparency, and long-term relationship-building.
“There was care. There was a shared language. But yes, we also created closed spaces and bureaucracy over time.” – Sharanya Sekaram
What Happens When We Name Contradictions?
As the session closed, Vandita reminded us that naming tensions is itself a feminist act.
“When we name contradictions, we move toward more honest and liberatory practices.” – Vandita Morarka
The conversation left us with much to reflect on, not only about how we resource movements, but also about how we make decisions, hold power, and navigate uncertainty. With the #NoRightAnswers series, we don’t have a single conclusion; instead, we are left with more questions to sit with complexity and ask hard questions. What conversation have you been avoiding because it’s risky, unpopular, or hits too close to home?
Some of the resources referenced during this conversation along with additional resources are listed here for further reading. If you find yourself navigating such complex and layered questions, do join us for our next conversation. You can join the Feminist Leadership Hub by clicking here to receive regular updates on the upcoming conversations in this series.