Christy Clark to voters: No boys allowed
Posted by John on August 3, 2012 · 11 Comments
John Devitt
Earlier this week British Columbia Premier Christy Clark made her first visit to Revelstoke after being appointed to the leadership of our province by her Liberal party in March 2011. Many of us likely had questions about the Northern Gateway pipeline, the embarrassing state of the Trans Canada highway and the vague promises to fix it one day. Perhaps you were curious about what her public condemnation of the National Energy Strategy would mean for British Columbia or the $475,000 in credit card bills the premier expensed to the province this past year, more than double that of past premiers. Well, unfortunately, if you had been birthed with the misfortune of having a Y chromosome, you were at first — not allowed to visit with our elected official while she was in Revelstoke. Then, when she did allow a few men to attend they were not permitted to ask her any questions.
It seems that even in 2012 with so much progress all around us, gender bias is alive, well and socially acceptable. In an edition of Higher Ground from June (http://www.revelstokecurrent.com/2012/06/15/on-violence-against-men/) the Catch 22 of purposely creating equality in a given system inherently promotes inequality. When intentionally elevating one group over another, it only serves to perpetuate that inequality. In fact, several women in Revelstoke expressed disdain that the Premier had discriminated against men with this speaking tour. It concerned many that Christy Clark had effectively alienated half of the voting public by focusing solely on women with this visit. Had she allowed an open house with anyone and everyone in Revelstoke at a later time, perhaps there would not be so much bitterness.
It is an interesting double standard in gender roles. A “women only” presentation by our elected leader receives nary a criticism. However, what would have occurred if Gordon Campbell had passed through town and organized a lunch for ‘Men in Business’ because girls have cooties? What if Stephen Harper stopped in and coordinated an afternoon tea for ‘White People in Business’? Something tells me society would not be okay with either of these examples. So how was this actual occurrence acceptable?
As reported by The Revelstoke Current on July 31st (http://www.revelstokecurrent.com/2012/07/31/premier-christy-clark-comes-to-town/) there were a select few men from the community, mostly dignataries and Liberal party members who were allowed to attend the breakfast meeting with Premier Clark, however, they were not allowed to ask questions of the Premier. One wonders if they were forced to sit in a roped off ‘Boys are Stupid’ area and only allowed to speak once spoken to. Clark was quoted as stating, “We talk differently when it’s just women in the room.”
Quite a few women I spoke to were insulted by the insinuation by Premier Clark that somehow as women they were incapable of holding their own in a room balanced with both sexes. Women in Revelstoke are a tough bunch who don’t have time for the implication they are weak and therefore need protection from men in a political discourse. It was these same women that suggested I write this week about how unfortunate it was men were not allowed to meet with Christy Clark.
In a society such as ours where we pride ourselves on equality and inclusion is it not time to be uniting our populations as opposed to dividing them? Instead of identifying those in business by gender, is it really so radical to simply have a ‘People in Business’ breakfast meeting? With so much going on the world when will we decide there is no further room for gender bias in politics?
I realize this is an opinion piece which explains why you haven’t included any facts. “Quite a few” so you spoke to more than 2 women, who’s self esteem may be so low that they aren’t comfortable in a room full of powerful women with something to say. The Premier didn’t insinuate that women couldn’t hold their own in a room full of men, she said that women speak differently woman to woman – and she is right – as men speak differently to each other when women aren’t in room. My take was that she wanted to hear specifically what women had to say plain and simple. I attended the event in Invermere and found the opportunity to meet with the premier in a small group refreshing and inspiring. There were women who held different political values but whom would agree that to meet a woman who is a daughter, a mother, intelligent, successful and powerful is inspiring. There are Women in Business events at Chambers all over the world, there is a speaker series called Women of Influence, there is a publication called Inspiring Women. If you have an issue with our female Premier wishing to speak directy with women then you probably have an issue with these other events and organizations too. I realize that you are young and therefore idealistic so when you are all grown up, perhaps with a wife and grown daughters you’ll get this.
don’t get upset..at least she came to Revelstoke for a visit..she did alot of these woman only meetings..and your right Savannah..there are all kinds of woman’s business associations..but still puzzled why they don’t have a woman’s only golf club..
I think what disturbed the women and men I spoke to so much was the double standard this event demonstrated and that it should not be allowable in politics. It is unfortunate that an 18 year old male, learning about our democracy for the first time and interested in meeting our appointed leader, was not even offered the choice simply because of gender. How that could inform his belief in our political system is a real shame. For those who would say “well now men know what it’s like”, I say that is a bullying tactic to further create inequality through repression. We should choose to rise above retaliatory behaviours in order to create true equality. Perhaps men and women in Revelstoke would not have been so offended by our Premier’s actions if she had also held an open forum for all people after the women’s only event?
I could agree with most of your comments Suzannah, right up until you used agism and your assumption of my personal life to justify your beliefs. All that served was to prove the point of inequality inherent in our society which we turn a blind eye to. I realize that you are probably old, bitter and jaded and will not understand since I realize you probably don’t have a husband or any sons.
John, you have to get a grip on life.
To make those slurs is so low, so pathetic, as to be a crying matter for society and Revelstoke as a whole. Just because some one tells you something you don’t like does not give you the right to cast such slurs and innuendos and nausious (sp) barbs.
I would think most thinking folks are simply embarassed by how you demeaned and belittled yourself in your comments. An apology to Suzannah and the folks of Revelstoke is more than in order by yourself.
John..don’t think Editor of the Revelstoke Current should let some one who does a column for him retaliate on personal level to some one who responds to his letter. Used to like your little ditti’s and enjoyed what you had to say..and as David said..an apology is warranted to both Savannah and people of Revelstoke.I will be screening my reading of your columns until I see an apology.
Appalled at that comment from John.
Discusting behaviour more suited to a school playground. Then again I never bought my children up to act like spoilt brats! I call for an apology and an explanation from your Editor!
Shame on you, John… I usually enjoy your column. Not sure what nerve got hit but you really need to get a grip! There is a huge difference between opinions and personal attacks and you definitely crossed the line.
An apology is in order although I am doubtful one will be received.
I don’t get it people. Why is it okay for Savannah to say, “I realize that you are young and therefore idealistic so when you are all grown up, perhaps with a wife and grown daughters you’ll get this” but it’s not okay for John to rebuff with his comment: “I realize that you are probably old, bitter and jaded and will not understand since I realize you probably don’t have a husband or any sons”? Is it because Savannah’s attack was more subtle and John’s more blunt? In my opinion, I don’t think he should apologize for anything, nor should the editor. Remember, this is about equality for both genders. Fair is fair, boys and girls. Tit for tat.
My take on it is John’s comment was made in a bit of humour. Both comments were almost the same in that they focused on age and family situations, if anything I would say Savannah’s comments were more demeaning, she is talking about a 32 year old man like he is a child while I think John was trying to bring a little levity to the situation. Of course it is hard to understand sarcasm and humour from the static envirnoment of the internet but that is what I took from the comments.
Mr. Devitt, Wow. It’s unfortunate that the original topic at hand gets drowned in a sea of side bar issues. Politics. It is my own personal opinion, to which we are all entitled, that the Premier’s women-only forum would’ve been better received as an event that was secondary to one that was open to all members of the public. If anything, I’d have been more upset if I were a man who dismissed the event, only to learn that male attendance had been permitted afterall.
It’s a shame that people with intelligible, thought-provoking input would add comments that are intended to hurt or degrade others. It shifts the focus to nit-picking, and it discredits your own input that may otherwise have been well-received.
How can someone crusade for equality and inclusiveness in their writing, yet make such intolerant comments to someone else who has responded?
I understand why someone would take offense to Savannah’s final comment, although I think that her point was valid about wives and daughters. Perhaps she was saying that our differences in life experiences and situations affect our perspectives on many issues? I’m a wife and I have a daughter, and I got something totally different from her comment than you did.
Ergo, we most certainly do think differently and speak differently than men.
If you were indeed joking, now might be a good time to say so.
If your intention was to spark discussion, you’ve achieved your goal!
For the most part I think ur all being childish; we’ve come a long way with equality. Women in politics, or in positions of authority, have done little to change this; u ever wonder why? If men’s clubs hav been made out to be taboo, so shud every special interest clubs or groups be. If u want true equality – get rid of all our useless politicians “the Senate”. Access to our politicians is everyones right and should not be driven by their idiotic and moronic agendas.