Democracy needs women; snowplowing policy proves it

Can snowplowing be sexist?

Even if you live in Ottawa, a city that removes snow from its downtown core with military precision, you’ve probably never asked yourself that. Until I read Caroline Criado Perez’s Invisible Women – Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, it had never occurred to me to pose the question either.

But it matters that the answer is yes. And this is just one of a thousand reasons that our democracy needs to elect sufficient numbers of women to erase our chronic under-representation in the halls of power.

When you grow up in a world dominated by male decision-makers, the default assumption is that’s the way it is. And many of the stories we tell ourselves – “men are bigger risk takers”, “men have more confidence”, “it’s easier for men to raise money” – reinforce our willingness to accept that status quo.

But many other countries – some of them with much younger democracies and much less advanced economies – do better.  Despite significant gains women have made in every realm, Canada ranks a shocking 61st worldwide in terms of women’s political representation. And our failure to draw on women’s talents and insights has huge implications for every aspect of our lives.

We intuitively grasp how ridiculous it would be if parents were largely left out of policy decisions that affected families… If people living with disabilities had little to no voice when it came to making cities and technology accessible. And yet even though it’s 2019, women still occupy only 27% of the seats in our federal parliament. That’s indefensible.

Women’s voices in the news media are similarly under-represented, so over the past ten years, Informed Opinions has trained women all over the country to translate their knowledge and experience across many fields and sectors into news commentary. We motivate and support women in helping the broader public understand issues important to our lives. More than a thousand of them have done so.

In an effort to understand what stories are missing when women’s voices are absent, we created a word cloud from 100 published op eds penned by women we’d trained. By removing words that also commonly appeared in op eds written by men, we were able to identify which topics and concerns get significantly less attention if women aren’t consulted.

Some of the issues on the list are heartbreakingly predictable. Even before the #MeToo movement, the words “sexual” and “assault”, “violence” and “female” were prominent. But many other words point to essential survival matters for all human beings, such as “food” and “water”, “evidence” and “safety”, “disease” and “treatment”.

We also recently launched an online digital tool that measures in real time the percentage of women and men being quoted in influential news media. Our Gender Gap Tracker makes clear that men’s voices in public discourse dominate by more than two to one. It also tells us that 60% of the people quoted most often are politicians. That’s why it’s so important when party leaders appoint gender-balanced cabinets. Our equitable representation in one arena helps to eliminate our absence in the other.

When Rachel Notley became leader of the Alberta NDP, she told her team: “Don’t even think about bringing me a slate of candidates that’s not gender balanced.”* That needs to be every leader’s default. And between now and the next election, Informed Opinions will be collaborating with organizations working to get more women into politics to encourage all political parties to adopt this gender equity principle. Because it’s fundamental to representation.

As for the sexism of snow-plowing, here’s the deal:

The order of priority in which streets are plowed can have significant consequences for women’s lives. Not only that, but those consequences can end up costing taxpayers in health care costs.

The short story is that clearing pedestrian and public transit routes first, as opposed to main arteries, results in fewer accidents and hospital visits, most of them involving women. Because while most men travel alone, many women travel encumbered by shopping bags, strollers or older relatives. Women also generally walk further than men, in part because they tend to be poorer.

You can read Invisible Women yourself to identify the myriad other reasons. These include the fact that male-biased voice recognition software endangers women’s lives and male-biased performance evaluations stunt our careers. Elected officials aren’t the only people responsible for fixing those problems, but because their contracts are up for renewal every four years, it’s easier to ensure gender parity in their ranks.

So, this federal election, if you’re not running for office yourself, support a woman who is, whose values and priorities you share. Knock on doors for her, donate to her campaign, or invite your neighbours to meet and support her, too.

Snow removal is a mere drip off the pointy end of a massive icicle of policy gaps, and so much more needs to be done to make Canada genuinely democratic, and as fair, healthy and prosperous as it can be. 

*Rachel Notley spoke about this in Kate Graham’s fabulous “No Second Chances” podcast. Every one of the 12 episodes offers context, inspiration and enlightenment about the critical importance of women in politics. 

How do you respond to charges of being too aggressive or sensitive?

Let’s say you’re an intelligent, confident and assertive woman who doesn’t shy away from expressing your opinion: chances are that at one time or another, a colleague may have decided you were “too aggressive.”

Or maybe, by politely objecting to sexist behaviour in your workplace – the kind that expects the women present to  serve the coffee, tolerate derogatory comments, or delight in remarks about their appearance – you’ve been accused of being “over-sensitive”.

Last week at an Unbitten Tongues* forum with three fearless panelists and about 65 engaged civil servants in Alberta, both of these examples came up.

How, really, women asked, does one overcome the momentary disbelief or flash of irritation to respond to such comments effectively?

Dana DiTomaso, a digital marketing expert, CBC technology columnist and partner at Kick Point, observed that ever since she started dressing in men’s clothing, she’s no longer on the receiving end of such patronizing remarks.

But for those not willing to sacrifice their style preferences in order to be treated with respect, she offered the following comeback strategy:

Rather than try to respond to a comment or accusation that puts you on the defensive, she suggested, try shifting the onus onto the accuser by asking:

“How so?”

I think the strategy is inspired.

Because whether or not people offering such criticism are consciously trying to shut you down, by expecting them to explain or defend their comments, you’re both implicitly rejecting the premise of the dismissal, and requiring your accuser to articulate the value judgments that informed the comments. Their efforts to do so are likely to reveal more about their attitudes and assumptions than about your behaviour or emotional state.

The two other Edmonton panelists, recruited by the government of Alberta’s Ministry of the Status of Women, were equally thoughtful. Recently elected MLA Deborah Drever has been volunteering in her community since the age of eight, and is completing a degree in sociology at Mount Royal University. And Miranda Jimmy is a member of Thunderchild First Nation who sits on the Edmonton Public Library board and co-founded RISE – Reconciliation in Solidarity Edmonton – to support reconciliation in words and actions.

The participation of the three women in the Unbitten Tongues forum gave those present an opportunity to hear from, ask questions of and be inspired by role models who are speaking up in pursuit of making change in business, in government and in the non-profit sector.

For so many women who are working in arenas that are led and/or dominated by male colleagues, the opportunity to engage in frank conversations in a safe, women-only space is revelatory and invigorating.

That’s why, over the next year, in conjunction with the launch of my new book, OMG! What if I really AM the best person? I’ll be looking to convene similar panels in cities across Canada.

If you’re interested in engaging, motivating and supporting women in your network or community to speak up for change, please let us know. We would love to collaborate with you.

*Unbitten Tongues – In recognition of the difference women can make when they speak up — despite the many internal and external barriers to doing so — Informed Opinions offers opening remarks and facilitates panel discussions aimed at encouraging more women to share their knowledge and speak their truth.  

Mandatory High Heels and Facebook Feedback

EXPLOITING CELEBRITIES

How do you draw public attention to rampant discrimination against women restaurant workers? I played the celebrity card, and heightened the drama by contrasting the red carpet behaviour of Hollywood A-listers, Sandra Bullock (rooted to the spot by her heels) and Hugh Jackman (bounding down Yonge Street posing for selfies with fans).

My recent op ed in the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette takes aim at the ubiquitous and indefensible imposition of high heels on female wait staff, which handicaps them — both figuratively  and literally.

HOLIDAY OPPORTUNITIES

Because columnists like to take time off at Christmas, there’s more space to fill in the newspaper. What this meant for my piece was that editor Kate Heartfield supplemented my words with a large format photograph and two pull-quotes, making it impossible to miss.

So I was disappointed to discover that it generated only two comments on the Citizen‘s website — and, even more disappointingly, both were from male readers who had a narrow and dismissive view of the issue.

FACEBOOK FEEDBACK

However, yesterday, a colleague mentioned he’d seen my piece on the Citizen‘s Facebook page, which it had never occurred to me to visit. There I discovered 43 comments (most of them thoughtful and supportive, and many of them from women), 426 “thumbs up”, and 89 shares.

Given that my goal in writing the op ed was to change an egregious policy, I was greatly encouraged by this response. And I’ll be printing off copies of the piece to share with the server I spoke with, as well as her manager.

LEVERAGING COMMENTARY TO CHANGE POLICY

If you’d like to help prevent women working in restaurants from being compelled to wear dangerous footwear and revealing clothes (also forbidden by human rights codes in Ontario, BC, Quebec and Alberta — the four provinces I checked), please share the commentary through your own social media media channels, and with exploited restaurant employees near you.

PUTTING TROLLS IN CONTEXT

In the meantime, don’t get disheartened if the news site where your analysis appears features comments only from people trashing your ideas (or attributing ideas to you that you didn’t actually express, or calling you names, or otherwise engaging in troll behaviour). Because they’re not representative. Here’s the image you want to call to mind in response:

I can typing

 

WTF???

The confession made by the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies doubled as both a great tip and the best laugh of the day.

Last week during one of three Informed Opinions workshops I delivered in Winnipeg (thank you, Jane Ursel, director of RESOLVE and a professor at the University of Manitoba), a discussion broke out among the assembled researchers about the kind of misogynistic comments and hate mail often triggered by women speaking up — especially if their topics are remotely contentious (sexism, racism, homophobia — really, human rights of any kind).

Lori Wilkinson, who frequently comments on immigration issues, acknowledged that she often receives vicious feedback to her public advocacy efforts, and regularly copies the unsolicited advice and threatening emails into a document on her computer labelled “WTF”.

It took a few seconds for the significance of this acronym to sink in (some of us had to channel our inner teenager, and imagine ourselves texting in response to an offensive or confusing event).

But everybody responded to both the irreverence and resilience that the acronym and Lori’s practice implied.

And there’s something about being reminded of the fact that many women are targeted by hate mail, and of considering the censorious consequences when such intimidation strategies are effective. Getting to speak about it in a room full of others helped to counter the degree to which it feels personal in the moment when it lands in your in-box, or appears online in reaction to your byline and considered commentary.

I was equally inspired by the participants in the other two Winnipeg workshops, one of which included 16 women working in the NGO sector, advocating for marginalized populations — from immigrants and former inmates to abused women and Aboriginal people. Appreciating how much they do, with so little in the way of resources or support, reminded me of the fury I felt recently reading a newspaper story about the Conservative government’s new funding policies for CIDA.

In justifying the precedence now given to partnering with the business (as opposed to non-profit) sector, Foreign Affairs Minister, Julian Fantino made a throw-away comment about the superior efficiency of private companies. Having worked in both, I know he couldn’t be more mistaken.

In my experience, charitable organizations forced to survive on very little become incredibly creative at doing more with less — or they go under. They partner wherever possible, are relentlessly focused on outcomes, and trimmed whatever “fat” they might have had decades ago when governments first began to cut funding for the sector.

And for the record, when they absolutely must travel, they fly economy, stay in modest accommodations, and eat on the cheap (because to do otherwise cuts into the resources they have to deliver their programs and services). If only the same could be said for government ministers and the business executives whose companies are now benefiting from CIDA funding.