Yes, we need to have a debate on women’s issues
An alliance of organizations called Up for Debate tried to organize a federal leaders’ debate on women’s issues, but neither Stephen Harper nor Tom Mulcair will participate. Up for Debate is trying to arrange a series of one-on-one interviews instead. The
Heartfield: Does it matter that we won’t have a leaders’ debate on women’s issues? Is the idea patronizing or outdated, or are there real matters to discuss that merit a separate debate, even if it is 3/4 men at the table? Ashby: I think it does matter that there isn’t a debate strictly focused on women’s issues. There are over 1,200 cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada over the last 30 years, and the current government has refused to launch a nationwide investigation. A debate on women’s issues would be the perfect place for all parties to lay out their plans for dealing with that issue. Gormley: “Women’s issues debates” are philosophically inconsistent and politically self-defeating. They undercut a key feminist principle while pushing away potential sympathizers. And Canada should have had one anyway.
Those are fighting words, so let me back up a bit, slowly. Feminism is many things, including the belief that femaleness shouldn’t dictate the things people care about. But lived experience and inequality influence what everyone cares about. Women tend to experience life differently than men. So is it better for leaders to debate how to equitably tackle issues that affect different genders, classes and racialized groups in certain ways, or better to label certain issues “women’s issues” and debate them separately?
It seems almost pre-pubescent to claim that boys have their issues and we have ours, just us girls. And masochistic to exclude men with the very title “women’s issues debate” when they might otherwise want to make the world a bit fairer. And ridiculous to make gender another niche when sexism is what happens to the 51 per cent of people as they go about their comparatively low-paid, catcall-filled lives. And so very stupid to imply that any problem lives in a single-sex vacuum.
But that argument would be stronger if the early all party debate participants and panel had roughly represented the country’s population, and if even half of them had consistently and substantively considered how economic, security, justice and citizenship issues specifically affect a major group — the majority.
That didn’t happen, so Madeline’s right. There should have been a women’s issues debate. In the shortterm, it would have been the best opportunity to hash out critical problems.
Still, shouldn’t any general debate discuss gender across the range of political issues? Sexual violence involving military and peacekeeping forces in security discussions, say, or wartime rape in international justice discussions, or women and girl’s reproductive health access in foreign aid discussions? Gender should feature in the main event, not a sideshow. The most regrettable fact about the women’s issues debate — maybe more regrettable than the fact it died — is that even as women resist the idea they should stick to their place, they may reproduce that idea’s logic. Chapin: I’m torn on this one. I’ve been thinking a lot about what happens when “women’s issues” are separated as a sideshow rather than folded into the main event. Vice just launched Broadly, their feminist channel. There was a good debate on CBC’s The Current about whether Vice should just do these types of stories on their main site rather than creating a “pink ghetto” of coverage. Maybe having more female-centric pieces as part of the mandate for Vice’s main site would change its alpha male tone that can be so off-putting and problematic. Maybe Trudeau wouldn’t throw a ladies’ night that panders to gender stereotypes (“cocktails and candid conversation”) if these issues were better incorporated into everyday debate.
I think it’s very important for feminist issues to be part of the mainstream conversation rather than shoved in a corner that publications and politicians can point to and say “look, we DO care about women.” These issues should get a chair at the main table, and it’s disappointing that if you search the transcript of the Maclean’s debate, the word “women” appears four times — three times as part of the phrase “men and women.” So basically, gender equality was not discussed at all.
The women’s issue debate would have certainly filled that void. But it would also fuel the idea in some people’s minds that reproductive rights, gender parity and violence against women are afterthoughts that still don’t make the list of Most Important Issues. I would have preferred if moderator Paul Wells had asked Harper directly about the low percentage of female candidates in the Conservative party (19 per cent), or as Madeline brought up, the lack of investigation into missing or murdered indigenous women. Heartfield: So it sounds like a separate debate shouldn’t be necessary — because these issues that get shunted into the “women’s issues” box should be discussed in every debate. But if they aren’t, we need some kind of pushback to keep these concerns on the agenda. We’ve mentioned a few of the issues already. There is also sexual harassment within federal politics, and the lack of gender parity in almost every aspect of political life and on corporate boards. There are the rights of trans women not to be labelled predators for going into bathrooms. There are the rights of sex workers to safe environments. How can the women and men who care about these issues keep them at the forefront, between now and Oct. 19? Gormley: You know, I’m not sure that all of those issues can be at the forefront of the campaign. I mean, if every important issue could be at the forefront, there wouldn’t be a forefront. There is plenty of time left to talk about something new on social media, on Up For Debate’s oneon-one leader interviews, etc. But advocacy groups could also listen carefully to what’s already being talked about — say, security, civil liberties, democratic reform and the economy — explain how gender (and class, and race) play specific roles in those issues, and then try to shift the focus of the conversation rather than start a couple dozen new ones. Voters may want to remind candidates that in the majority of age groups and the majority of jurisdictions, Canadian women have been voting more than men. That might get politicians’ attention. Ashby: I don’t relish stuffing women’s issues into the “pink ghetto,” either, but I also have a hard time believing that the candidates will bring those issues up on their own without some incentive, or at least some prompting. Which is a bit disappointing, because I think all the candidates have the potential to differentiate themselves by bringing those issues up. Chapin: I think debate moderators, politicians who have fought for women’s issues and journalists can do a lot to hold the candidates accountable. One thing news outlets in particular can do is determine and cover the issues they think should be at the forefront of the agenda.
Mulcair has lots to brag about, such as his universal daycare plan, despite its flaws, and his pledge to launch an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Trudeau has promised gender parity in cabinet. The Green Party’s platform includes pay equity legislation and reproductive rights.
Like Shannon said, Canadian women have been voting more than men, so candidates should emphasize these issues as integral to their platforms.