Tag: valuing women

Media exposure creates ripples of influence

Posted on by Shari Graydon

There’s no predicting what impact your media intervention might have, but here are a couple of recent examples of the ripples created by published op eds…

******

Two days after Kathleen Wynn was elected leader of the Ontario Liberal party, becoming the sixth female premier in the country, The Globe and Mail published a thoughtful commentary by former Prime Minister Kim Campbell.

Her uniquely informed perspective about women’s political leadership referenced the great work of Equal Voice, a multi-partisan organization dedicated to electing more women in Canada. This profile helped to reinforce Equal Voice’s position as the go-to source on the issue, and gave Executive Director Nancy Peckford broadcast exposure on two CBC Radio programs later the same week.

******

My own recent op ed in The Globe about the regrettable use of sexist stereotypes in ad campaigns (the ignorance and ineffectiveness of which was illustrated by the Canadian Wheat Board in February) didn’t generate any broadcast requests. But a week or so after it was published, Sarah Barker at the Canadian Women’s Foundation told me that more than a dozen people in her network had emailed her the link asking,

“Do you know this woman? You should be working with her!”

(We’d already found each other, but it was nice for both of us to have the value of our collaboration re-affirmed!)

WTF???

Posted on by Shari Graydon

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.

Women’s voices — on women’s issues — missing in action

Posted on by Shari Graydon

The infographic below is depressingly self-explanatory — on one level. It makes clear how entrenched the gender skew is when it comes to who gets quoted in North American media. And — as MediaWatch discovered 20 years ago when we conducted a comprehensive analysis of newsmakers (those quoted or reported on) in Canadian dailies — women’s voices are chronically under-represented as experts.

Some of the reasons for this are predictable — then and now: as long as male politicians and CEOs outnumber women, their voices will likely dominate on many issues. BUT how is it that even on issues that disproportionately affect women, such as abortion, birth control and women’s rights, the overwhelming majority of those whose opinions are quoted are male?

As Liz Sheehy, law professor at the University of Ottawa and a member of Informed Opinions’ advisory committee said in an email to me this morning, “More proof of the need for this important work!”

Deferring to Jay Smooth on trolls

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Don’t take my word for it… On the retrograde troll front, I defer to hip hop DJ and vlogger, Jay Smooth, who recently weighed in on the classic, cautionary Internet story involving media critic, Anita Sarkeesian. He offers a compelling and persuasive analysis of an issue I’ve tackled before— but does so from a distinctly male gamer perspective.

My favourite line — and the one most relevant to Informed Opinions — is this: 

“When you bully and harass a woman for speaking her mind, all you do is show us that you’re afraid of that woman’s voice and you don’t think you can beat her intellectually without using a cheat code.“

A videoblogger herself, Sarkeesian had launched a Kickstarter campaign in May to raise money for a new series of videos about sexist stereotyping in video games (a subject ripe for critique, if there ever was one).

Predictably, the anti-women troll community (many of them avid gamers) went into overdrive, responding with the kind of hate and vitriol now familiar to anyone who spends time in comment sections inspired by articles, commentary or, apparently, funding appeals by women with opinions.

The irony — and we’re really celebrating this — is that the misogynist spewing fueled an astonishingly supportive backlash. Although Sarkeesian asked for only $6,000 worth of funding, she ended up with $158,922!

Now if only there were a way for other progressive writers and media makers, male and female, to harness that same energy.

Jesse Brown, who blogs on technology for Maclean’s, summed up the good news/bad news nature of this event in How misogynist trolls accidentally funded feminism, also worth a look.

Ignoring the haters

Posted on by Shari Graydon

So you’ve crafted your insights into an engaging and persuasive op ed, and the comment editor of your local newspaper has published the piece. Your inbox is now receiving congratulatory notes from friends and colleagues, and maybe even a query or two from broadcast media wanting you to expand on your subject on air.

So far so good.

But then you make the mistake of going online to check out the comment trail being generated by your op ed. And you discover that two dozen trolls have sneered at you for daring to disagree with a Rhodes scholar, for failing to raise a point that had nothing to do with your argument, or for having the temerity to distinguish yourself from a doormat (see Rebecca West*).

You are momentarily horrified. And then you get to the snide swipe by “Chazz” whose capacity for cogent analysis is limited to references to vomit bags and toilet paper.

That’s when it hits you: at least some of these unfortunate readers are actually would-be writers who have tried and failed to submit something worth publishing themselves. And lurking online under the cover of pseudonyms like “muscle280” and “Bait Master”, trashing other people’s opinions, is the closest they can get to feeling a sense of agency or influence.

So then you just feel sorry for them.

For more on dealing with backlash, see earlier posting, Implanted breasts and concerned scholars. In a future post, I’ll offer some tips on how to outsmart the trolls.

In the meantime, here’s a reminder of that famous quote, penned by the inspirational and prolific British author, Rebecca West:

*I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.

 

The “entitled white male perspective”

Posted on by Shari Graydon

[NY Times media columnist David] Carr says that years ago he was on a panel with Jack Shafer, who is now a writer for Slate, when someone pointed out to them that the panel was mostly white men. Shafer joked, “But the entitled white male perspective is such an interesting perspective,” and everybody laughed. When Carr told me this, I laughed, too. But I think the time for laughter has passed. It’s now time for the likes of Shafer and Carr and Ackerman to get serious about this subject. We know people will listen—there’s a million white-dude panels in history to prove it.

This is the last paragraph of a provocative piece titled “Why White Men Should Refuse to Be on Panels of All White Men”, by Cord Jefferson, Senior Editor of Good Media. It was first posted in May of this year, but I missed it and — no surprise — it’s still relevant!

You can read the full commentary here.

The truth is that although name recognition of prominent speakers can sometimes increase attendance at events, relying on the usual suspects often robs discussions of new ideas and unique insights…

What Women Want = Better Life for Men

Posted on by Shari Graydon

American author Paco Underhill’s new book, What Women Want is currently generating lots of ink and brisk sales for pointing out what ought be obvious by now: No business can afford to ignore women’s power and presence.

Our dominant influence over broad swaths of consumer spending has been acknowledged (if not accommodated) for decades. Now Underhill charts the degree to which attending to women’s priorities and concerns can make or break even companies in industries that are seemingly far removed from spheres traditionally seen as women’s domain.

Central to his book is the argument that “…by walking the female path, you end up making things better for women and men.” … Another good reason for news media to solicit and feature women’s perspectives on a wide range of issues that affect us all.

Welcome

Posted on by Shari Graydon

In a world wrestling with the challenges presented by massive oil spills, dramatic climate change, a vulnerable global economy and food and water shortages, we need truly “informed opinions” more than ever.

And we need them to reflect and consider the full breadth and diversity of human perspective and experience.

But even in the most equitable of countries, the news sources wielding the most influence are woefully inadequate in this regard. Although women make up 51% of the planet’s population, our views on a broad range of issues are woefully absent from the public discourse. And that’s a problem – for all of us.

Informed Opinions – an initiative of Media Action – aims to help change the imbalance. This site explains why and how– and what you can do to contribute.

We hope you’ll spend a few minutes checking out what we’re up to, and we welcome your feedback, ideas and support.

Project aims to close gender gap in public discourse

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Project aims to close gender gap in public discourse

by Shari Graydon   (published in the Victoria Times Colonist 17 January 2010)

Even before my short-lived plunge into BC political waters as press secretary to premier, Ujjal Dosanjh, I’d survived the kind of name-calling most people imagine being strictly reserved for terrorists or puppy mill operators. As a weekly newspaper columnist during the mid-1990s, my mild musings on questionable polls and the peculiar sizing practices of women’s clothing manufacturers had earned me hate mail addressed to “bitch of the year”.

I reflected on this recently when learning that even in 2010, men’s perspectives on newspaper commentary pages outnumber women’s by a margin of three to one, a ratio that some editors say reflects the relative lack of submissions from women.

Reluctance to become a target of criticism remains an issue for some women, but lack of time is another factor. Women still shoulder more caregiving responsibilities than their male counterparts, and are more apt to be CEOs of small, rather than large enterprises. So even a female expert not squeezed by sandwich generation duties is less likely to have access to the resources that would support her in crafting a well-written argument based on her area of expertise.

But there’s another dynamic at play. Women are also more inclined than men to discount their expertise. I once invited dozens of female experts from a wide range of fields to be listed in a directory for reporters. A depressingly large number of them demurred, saying, “I’m really not the best person.” Journalists tell me that this kind of confession rarely emerges from the mouths of their male sources.

As a result, news media seeking qualified commentary – either on the op ed pages, or in the context of a particular story – reflect a chronic gender imbalance. And the absence of women’s voices means that their good ideas are less likely to be heard and their leadership is less likely to be noticed. And that’s a problem – not just for women, but for society as a whole.

It’s never made sense to access only the intelligence and insights of half the population, and now, when more women graduate from universities than men, it makes even less sense. Ignoring the informed opinions of women has significant implications for the health of our democracy and the quality of our governance. The challenges we face – environmental, economic, social, cultural – have never been so great, and we need the best public policy and the most informed decisions we can possibly get.

This is the impetus behind Informed Opinions – a new initiative designed to support more knowledgeable women in contributing their perspectives, priorities and perceptions to public discourse. In partnership with universities and news outlets, the project delivers skill-building workshops to female experts and connects them with key news editors. The goal is to not only broaden the diversity of voices in the media, but to enhance Canada’s competitiveness in the process.

Research from around the world makes clear that social equality translates into economic prosperity. When women are educated and contributing their skills and knowledge in all arenas, the entire society benefits. Canada is already testimony to that. But the chronic under-representation of women’s perspectives – both in government and in the news media – continues to limit our capacity to address complex issues.

In 2007 McKinsey & Company found that companies with women as well as men in senior management positions perform better financially than organizations where all senior managers are male. It’s not a big stretch to assume that our contribution to public discourse would also have a positive impact on Canada’s performance on a broad range of indicators.

At a time when traditional newsgathering models are struggling to maintain their advertising base and compete with electronic and digital media, an expanded pool of expert sources can’t help but be welcome. And who knows? Maybe the increase in women’s perspectives will make female commentators less likely to be targeted with gender slurs.

Ottawa-based author Shari Graydon is delivering a public lecture about Informed Opinions on Monday January 25th at 12 noon at the University of Victoria in room 157 at the Faculty of Law (Fraser) building. For more information, contact Maneesha Dekha at mdeckha@uvic.ca