Inspired by an excellent series of panels and events organized by Women in Toronto Politics (creep them at @WiTOpoli or their network at #WiTOpoli) and my own work contributing to the Academy of the Impossible’s Campaign School series (creep us at @impossibledotws or #CampaignSchool), I have spent a good measure of the past few weeks thinking about the shape of pushes to attract and engage women in the political process.
These attempts are not limited to encouraging women to seek political office but extend to a variety of other forms of participation ranging from activism and community-organizing to journalism and agenda-setting.
There have been several excellent recaps of the core themes discussed at each of the WiTOpoli events held so far, and they come highly recommended. What follows are a few supplemental concepts that I’d submit as relevant moving forward.
AVOID UNDERSTATING GENDER
There is a myth of systemic parity in matters of gender that seems to be attracting less scrutiny than ever before. It is unclear whether the intention is decidedly sinister, perhaps instead driven by a combination of impatient optimism and an attempt to highlight the contribution of trailblazers that have inarguably shattered walls and ceilings for women in many facets of life.
Regardless of the motives involved, people are increasingly going to argue that we are living in the 21st century and women have all the same opportunities that men do to participate in any political activity they desire.
That is simply not true. Don’t let them get away with it.
AVOID OVERSTATING GENDER
Women can transform politics. They can make Council more conciliatory. They can make compelling cases for “women’s issues” like childcare and education.
They can do all these things, sure. But women also have every right to treat the political process with the same level of contempt and paranoia as the current political establishment does. It is not womankind’s job to transform politics, solve perpetual conflict, or nurture western society though adolescence.
WOMEN ARE NOT ALL THE SAME
Without a doubt, eye-rolls-per-minute peak whenever anyone tries to make a general statement about what women think/feel/know/bring. Being clear that women are individuals with different and conflicting concerns and approaches encourages engagement efforts to radiate evenly across age, geography, socioeconomic status, and ethnic/religious identification.
The simple act of starting sentences with “A woman could…” instead of “Women can…” has been anecdotally shown to lower a room’s EPM by up to 86%.
KEEP PARTISANSHIP OUT OF IT
During the first WiTOpoli panel, an exchange arose ending in a statement somewhere along the lines of “What if we end up with a bunch of Nunziatas?”
The question prompted chuckles, but perhaps shouldn’t have. I want my niece or a co-worker to feel comfortable running for office regardless of her politics or approach. It is perfectly reasonable for ideology to inform debates about gender and vice versa, but that discussion shouldn’t take place at the front door.
HOW DO WE MEASURE SUCCESS?
This point is contentious, and arguments are made for both tangible and intangible metrics.
Some say it should be measured by gender parity among elected officials; others prefer parity among initial candidates. Some suggest that success should be measured in the financial infrastructure that women have access to; others in perceptions of the internal and external stigmas surrounding them.
The obvious conclusion is that everyone examines what constitutes success through different lenses and, for the sake of making headway though the widest range of channels possible, the celebration of different parties’ pets and passions should probably be encouraged.
WHAT ARE MEN TO DO?
It is likely lost on no one that this post is being written by a man (a SWM at that), and I think it is worthwhile to be clear about the level of humility with which many of us venture a contribution to this discussion.
So what were all the dudes in the audience thinking about WiTOpoli?
No idea. Feel free to ask them. If pressed, I’d venture that we wanted to learn, interact, and show commitment to a process that we feel connected to.
We weren’t there because we thought our presence legitimized or enabled anything. We were there because we’re as tired of dealing with dim, shallow patriarchs as anyone else.
So. ….what’s next?
