Why Elect More Women?

I received a news release today from Equal Voice, a multi-partisan non-profit organization that works to promote the election of more women in Canadian politics. This release congratulated Jean Charest, the new premier of Québec, for creating a cabinet that consists of 50% men and 50% women. It also included quotes from leaders of federal parties about why they agree that more women are needed in the different levels of government.

Let me share their reasons with you and then tell you why I don’t think this is good enough.

First, snippets from the release about why leading current politicians think it is important to have more women elected:

Minister Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women: “We must work together through non-partisan measures to ensure that women have an equal opportunity when it comes to serving in public life.”

Stéphane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party: “We need more women in Parliament and in government to ensure that the voices of all Canadians are heard.”
Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois: “The low participation rate of women in politics is a blemish on democracy in Canada and Quebec” [ed: no elaboration in the release as to why it's a blemish or needs to be changed] .

Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party: “Women are needed in the House of Commons to bring the issues of their communities to the forefront.”

Fine reasons all.

But not enough, in my view.

These reasons largely speak to fairness - we should have more women in politics because…well…it’s the right thing to do.

Who can argue with fairness, with opportunities to be heard? No one wants to be seen as “blemished”.

One could argue that men can also “bring the issues of their communities to the forefront”, but I don’t think anyone would argue that women shouldn’t.

But these all strike me as “apple pie” statements. While they aren’t likely to be argued against, they also aren’t likely to create momentum for change.

Even for women — what creates the impulse to run for office?

Reading and listening to women in politics talk about their experiences, getting involved in politics is not particularly related to balancing an uneven proportion in the legislature. It’s not “because I can (or should be able to)” — at least, not any more, although this may have been true in the beginning.

Women’s political involvement does reflect bringing important issues to the forefront and representing communities. But still, can’t men do this as well as women?

My answer is a variety of no — at least they can’t do it the same way in the majority of cases.

I think we need to emphasize and demonstrate that Women (Can) Do Politics Differently. They approach the issues from a different perspective sometimes, but more importantly, they can approach resolving the issues in different ways, they can conduct themselves differently, they are generally less competitive and more collaborative and connective. (For more on why, read my post on Women in Politics: How Can it Make a Difference?)

In my breakfast reading (ok, I’m a bit behind), I happened across an article in the March issue of The Walrus titled Snail Males. It was a discussion of why Canadian men seem to be falling behind in high school reading levels, educational engagement, and university enrollment.

What caught my eye was this explanation (emphasis added):

In a fall 2006 Globe and Mail article, Ian Brown refers to the “modern feminized university,” an institution where traditional models of teaching have been replaced by a more co-operative, feminine model of interaction. Marion Hannaford, has a similar diagnosis of the effects of pedagogical changes broadly instituted at the high-school level. She argues that teaching methods are now heavily biased in favour of girls. “Everyone has become aware of the learning needs of girls, but we’ve just forgotten about the boys,” she says. According to Hannaford, the competitive learning that comes naturally to males has been replaced by collaborative learning styles better suited to girls. Jim Sentance, an associate professor of economics at the University of Prince Edward Island, watches his son show signs of disengagement with school and suggests that the legitimate feminist complaints about pedagogy have been turned on their head. “While the old learning style favoured males, the new emphasis on discussion, participation, following instructions, and meeting deadlines has moved us in the other direction. Boys don’t see a lot of point in working hard on assignments when the grades are just shared out to others,” says Sentance.

Note: this perspective is not accepted by all. But it does link to these same thoughts in my mind about politics.

Politics is about connective representation and collaborative decision-making. It requires discussion, collaboration, participation, meeting deadlines, and sharing credit. It is not about competition and top-billing — or shouldn’t be. And this is identified as a female style.

And that is a nice summary of why we need more women in politics. We need to nurture a different way of “doing” politics in order to have a political environment that is truly effective and seen as positive, trustworthy, and connected to the people it represents.

And we need both men and women to be contributing — not just because it’s fair or “the right thing to do”, but because we can’t shift from where we are to where we need to be without both genders working together from their strengths.