What women think

Tom Flanagan, former adviser and mentor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has been embroiled in controversy this week  for saying that the head of Wikileaks should be killed. (Did I just really write that here?) And yes, he's publicly issued regret for his words.  But that's not what this post is about. 

In  the clip from CBC's Power and Politics,  Flanagan explains the remark by saying he was feeling "manly."(Did I just write that too?) Let's assume it's preposterous. Still, I find it interesting that he reached for that defence. 

Being "manly," it seems, is exactly what will vault your opinion into the mainstream media. It is "manly" to be provocative and, in the parlance of the TV producers, "edgy." Everybody wants to be edgy and manly. If you're not, you're, well, feminine and kind of boring. Not edgy at all.

This week, an organization called Informed Opinions released some revealing stats into the gender balance of the commentariat in Canada. Here's what it found, after an exhaustive, day-by-day analysis of the major media over a period of a couple of weeks:

In the six papers published during the period surveyed, only 16% of the op eds 18/113) and 15% of the regular columns (12/81) were written by women. The results varied by newspaper, with the Toronto Star publishing the highest ratio of female columnists (44%), but zero op eds by women. The National Post, in contrast, featured entirely male columnists and only 12% women-penned commentary, all of which was reprinted from American publications. Women wrote 8% of the op eds on The Globe and Mail’s comment page and 18% of the columns during the week studied, during which Margaret Wente was off). Women writers in the Ottawa Citizen made up 20% of the columnists and 27% of op ed contributors.

 On the electronic front, both the public broadcaster did a better job of including women’s voices than the private station. CBC Radio’s The Current featured 31% female guests (11/35), but CTV’s Power Play, focusing exclusively on federal politics, included only one woman out of 27 guests.

 

I'm happy that my newspaper triumphs in female-column representation. That's a true achievement -- nearly 50 per cent.  Meanwhile, as a consumer, and some-time participant on the TV end of things, I find the television numbers startling, but funnily enough, not surprising.

First, some full disclosure. Shari Graydon, head of Informed Opinions, recently recruited me to be one of the "mentor journalists" to help other women get their points of view published (I've yet to actually *do* any of that advising, but I'm supportive in principle so far.)

As well, most regular readers of this blog know that I also turn up from time to time on those political TV shows that were analyzed in the study. (It used to be mainly CBC, but now I'm mostly on CTV, where it was announced this week that Don Martin will be the new host of Power Play. Why did I drift to the other network after a two-decade-long commitment? That's another story.)

The producers and hosts of these shows will tell you that they're not discriminating against women -- that women journalists and politicos don't generally say 'yes' when they're asked. I think they're right about that. 

Everyone has a theory: women are juggling more things, at home and at work, and getting an opinion out there takes time. (Unless of course you want to go on TV and advocate that someone be killed, in which case, you can probably toss that off while you're making dinner plans.) There's also the simple numbers issue, in that there are fewer of us here on the Hill, so it's easier to find men to opine on air. 

But here, from someone who's in this world, let me offer just a couple more thoughts. First of all, I've noticed that there is a real status difference in Ottawa between veteran women and men in the political-reporting world. Most of the women I know who've been in Ottawa a couple of decades, like yours truly, are still reporters -- meaning that we still are required to go to the scrums, file the news stories, feed the insatiable beast of breaking news. In the print world, that means filing stories for a roughly 6 p.m. deadline.

 Most of the men who have been here that long usually are columnists, meaning that they don't cover the news: they analyze or opine on events from a distance and they're not filing at the whim of news events. There is only one woman columnist for the mainstream media among the parliamentary press gallery  -- the formidable Chantal Hebert, my colleague. Yes, I did say one. There are at least half a dozen men, scattered among the Ottawa print bureaus.

** Update: David Akin reminds me that we're about to get one new, Ottawa-based female columnist at SunMedia, Mercedes Stephenson, and that Manon Cornellier also columnizes for Le Devoir. ***

The other female columnists, at my own and other papers,  work out of Toronto or other major cities. (Susan Riley, retired, has one column in the Citizen a week, I should say, which I look forward to every week, but she's not employed as a columnist.) The rest of us are reporters, meaning that we don't have the luxury of  promising to down tools at 5 p.m. on a regular basis to be on TV. Usually, there are stories to file at that hour.  This is a logistics problem, first and foremost. 

But let's go back to the "manly" thing too and why Flanagan thought that was a good argument for spouting nonsense on TV.

I don't believe that politics is sports or war. That may make me too feminine.  Those metaphors leave me cold, frankly, as do all the barking dogs and bells and staged arguments of the TV panels.  When Sun TV started up in its early days this year, the motto was "join the fight." I loved it when one of my female colleagues in the press gallery put on Twitter: "I ain't fighting anybody." Well, I ain't either, and when I watch these efforts to turn politics into a battle to kill someone, metaphorically, or literally, as is the case with Flanagan's ill-considered remarks, I just tune out.

 I like TV political panels that have give-and-take -- the At Issue panel on CBC's The National being the best of the lot. I don't like seeing a conversation that amounts to the host asking for provocative or "manly" talking points, and the guests obliging. If I wanted to watch people barking at each other in my living room, I'd put on All in the Family reruns, and watch Archie call his son-in-law names. 

This very lengthy post (I realize now) is really just an attempt to start conversation. Those numbers from Informed Opinions are worth some real thought. It's not a coincidence that women's representation in the media is as bleak as it is in the elected world, or in the backrooms. I'd be curious to hear other explanations -- and if you offer them, I promise I won't say I'm going to kill you. 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Maureen]

Fantastic! Great article.
Th "manliness" of discourse these days is turning people off, which means people are less engaged in political discussions and debate because they just turn "manly" most of the time...

And that's bad. It's what leads to 40% voter turnout, with the maddest people showing up to vote (like they did in the mid term elections in the US)

[JR Jake]

Nice article. I like your paper just for that reason; you have more women contributing than others. Most that I have read are 4:1 leaning in favor of males. I can tell by the writing styles without looking at a name or picture if it was written by a female or not.

On the subject of 'manliness', a true man is one who can hold his words and address them when approrpiate; hopefully in a face to face encounter with an offender or the offended. A critical state department document is NEVER the place to place personal diatribes against another. It is not professional and lends a slanted view to those who follow the words years down the road.

Someone can tell me another is a jerk but I take it with a grain of salt. Someone can say another is a liar and a deceiver; but it means little until I have the opportunity to fact find.

Remember facts doen't always equal truth. Facts + Motive = Truth. Thank you for a nice article, enjoyed that.

[jon drake]

What, no comment on the recent byelections, Susan? Changing the channel is your choice, but your most recent blog doesn't really speak to what's most important inside the Liberal Party, which is what your column is supposed to be all about.

[Darwin O'Connor]

Of course this raised the question, why aren't you a columnist? These blog posts are better then most of the Toronto Star political columns, anyway.

[Neil]

" .......... with the maddest people showing up to vote......"

Which, I might add, are the older generation white males!!!

[Anne Peterson]

Mercedes Stephenson reflects a great deal of manliness so I wouldn't count her among the female representatives anyway. Most women don't warmonger, thank goodness.

[Cam]

Well, with Don Martin moving on, there is room over there for a columnist. Post Media, you listening?

[gail dugas]

As a former “chase” producer on Parliament Hill, I still shake my head at the disservice most political programming does to audiences.

i was alternately ticked off or depressed at what the guys - and they were guys -
decided what the lead stories should be. And i was often perplexed at what they considered edgy. It has been more than 20 years since TV started using the three MPs sitting on stools format - shouting “did not - did so” - usually for about six minutes. Can you remember much of what you ever learned from one of those sessions? Truly?

The world is a complicated place. And so is politics. In my experience, females are more comfortable with complexity.

So why aren’t more women involved in that discourse?

Maybe because women will take time to explain and weigh arguments during the course of a conversation. And unless it is done with some finesse, it can be boring dinner table conversation - not to mention bad television or radio. Thing is, I spent way more time than I should have in editing suites - paring down interviews with female subjects who had been pigeon-holed into talking about an issue through the lens of an attack or fight.

I just read a couple of articles on what is being called the “Happiness Study”.
Governments, the authors conclude, should focus less on creating wealth -- increasing the GDP, for example -- and more on developing policy to support community and healthy bodies and minds.
My TV bosses were fine people who lived in community and had family. But I swear they really believed that politics on the Hill was removed from all that. It was much easier to pitch an idea about childcare or family supports or rural issues when Parliament wasn’t sitting. And the tone, and even the body language of the interviewer when they did happen, left the impression that somehow this was second tier.
More than one astute and accomplished female expressed disappointment to me at the end of a taping. But try as I might, I failed to bridge that chasm.
I love a good debate. Even the occasional smack down. But in the end, I left the Hill feeling that I was missing the “battle” gene.
Susan, I think it is greatl that you have started this discussion. And you are wonderfully placed to lead it. Thank you for writing about real life.

[Joe Publice]

Don't wish to rain on your esoteric thread here, Sue, but at least one of the other "talking heads" on the CBC news network panel on which Tom "Macho Man" Flanagan made his assassination comments was a woman and she, along with the other two dudes beside her, was conspicuously mute after the remarks were made, and even after the host Solomon offered Flanman the chance to retract them.

P.S. Since when has the word "glib" (Tom-Tom's description of his remark) been synonymous with irresponsible or indefensible?

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

Susan, interesting quote you cite that claims the National Post has no female columnists - hey, we've been on a CPAC panel together, so I assume you know I am a columnist with the NP, so obviously that quote is, er, wrong. Marni Soupcoff and Barbara Kay are also columnists here... plus both Marni and I sit on the editorial board and write eds every week... so perhaps Informed Opinion is not as informed as it would like to be? I have a call in to Shari Graydon to explain this, as her website doesn't, but we sure are curious! Cheers, Tasha Kheiriddin

[Allison Bennett]

Susan, I have stopped watching Power and Politics for the reasons that you outlined in your blog, but mainly because I found the balance on the show was off. I would love to know the story of your switch to the CTV. I had also stopped watching all political shows because I'm tired of the blame games, the partisanship and spin in today's politics and media . I may watch Power Play because I enjoy Don Martin as a personality as well as as a commentator, but I'm so turned off by politicians and the media that I can't be sure. I always considered myself a news and political junkie, so that is a radical change.

[Christine Hearn]

Susan--I agree so much with your comments, particularly about the lack of status held by women political reporters.

When I was first in the Press Gallery in 1975 there were about 8 women and 250 men. We were a new breed and were certain if we worked hard enough and competed strongly enough we would eventually be given our due. 35 years later I don't think that is true--and may never be true. There are now way more women in the press gallery and in the media in general, but as you point out, their voices aren't heard as commentators or columnists or at senior levels in proportion to their numbers.

I see the same thing in the university where I am now--there are a few very strong women in key positions, while many men (some of moderate competence) occupy other key positions. I don't know why that is. For many of us it's not because we were too busy with husbands and kids or took time out from our careers because many of us didn't take time out.

Maybe some of us got tired of fighting all the same old fights over and over again, maybe our approach is so different it doesn't fit with current or past political discourse, or maybe it's just plain old centuries ingrained sexism.

I agree with Gail Dugas--I don't have the "battle" gene. I thought I did, both in journalism and politics, but after awhile it just got old and not worth the fight.

Thanks for opening up the discussion.

[zaphod]

By being proud of the fact that the TorStar has relatively more female columnists, you're expressing your pride in sheer ignorance. If Heather Mallick is what more women mean, keep 'em out! Actually, you're just demonstrating the idiocy of liberal tokenism.

[Sheila Gervais]

Well I just have to get in here. My apologies for coming to the debate so late, but as others, very pleased that you, Susan, again have initiated a discussion (I don't say debate, because, posters with initials aside, it does not appear as if an actual debate is happening here).
You and I have sat on (non-media/publicized) panels discussing women in politics, where you have discussed the women-in-media-aspect-of politics and I (and you too to be fair) have discussed the women-in-politics-aspect-of-politics, supported by international studies, that a critical mass of women is required (Deb Gillis and others have studied and argued the same for corporate boards, but I digress) to change deportment and decision-making in our parliaments and legislatures. Tone and appeal need to change before 100% of the population can be represented in our political discourse (so far mostly exhibited through politics, journalism and civil society engagement).
In the case of politics, none of us wish to "turn women into men" to have them succeed, but it does seem to too often be the entry fee (I mean that literally).
It seems so with journalism too. I offer as one example (and here I must claim that I quite like personally and professionally the participants under normal circumstances) a segment on CBCNN Power and Politics called "Point of Order" which is so testosterone charged - three men and a gong - where the whole point seems to be one-upping the other with the best clip-of-the-day and a hearty guffaw that I simply can't watch. Actually, I have a tough time with the cacophony. Not that others won't. I'm sure they will and do. I'm not so sure that many other voters or observers of my gender do or will and so I really have to wonder just how the entire public is potentially being served.
And, to be fair, after penning some items critical of my party I was several times invited to participate in panels on the other network's Power Play too, and somehow "uninvited" when I mentioned to producers that my point was not to cr*p all over the party or its leadership but to participate in the public debate. Maybe I'm too sensitive. But then again, maybe that's the point.
You go girl.

[Todd Pugsley]

Did you hear Flanagan's comments on Power and Politics November 11th? Check out the podcast about 40 minutes in. This guy is a chauvenistic professor - another problem for women on campuses across the country.

[Frank Docherty]

Being "manly"??? Feeling "manly" ??? I'm not quite sure what that means, however, when it comes to being and feeling "womanly"... Joanna Gualtieri comes to mind ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/cases/gualtieri.html ), and, how the predominantly "manly" Canadian government, for 17 long years, tried to break the will of a person who stood like a heroic warrior statue while in the face of dissagreement, harassment, bullying, obtuse neglect for human rights and, perhaps the most blatent ignorant example of "government manliness" that our country has ever seen!

[Gabby in QC]

Despite the fact I’m not a member of the professional women’s commentariat, may I offer a few points on this post?
• Ms. Delacourt, the disappointment you express towards the Power & Politics format, with its barking dogs and bells, is probably more a function of age rather than gender. You were the only woman on Don Newman’s Friday pundits’ panel. Would I be wrong in suggesting you look back upon that time fondly? Evan Solomon is trying to attract a different demographic than the one you belong to, that’s all. Despite the silly antics, the program still serves a useful purpose, despite its leftward-leaning imbalance.
• Your mentoring role includes helping other women get their points of view published. Forgive me, what precisely are exclusively women’s points of view? If infrastructure is not built and maintained properly, does it not affect men and women equally? If the country goes into recession, does it not affect men and women equally? If the safety of our cities and towns is threatened, does it not affect men and women equally? IMO “issues” are human rather than exclusively male or female issues.
• An increased presence of women in politics, in the media, or in the boardroom would not necessarily lead to a new era of fellowship and unity. Have you not watched the performances of Marlene Jennings, Anita Neville, Carolyn Bennett, Nicole Demers, Carole Lavallée, Carol Hughes, Niki Ashton in QP, among others? Their style is fashioned after the Wayne Easter and Ralph Goodale model of perennial outrage. They are just as loud and out for blood as their male counterparts, neither kinder, gentler nor more civil.
• As for the number of women in the media, be it print or electronic, maybe you should ask your Francophone colleagues what their formula for advancement is. Emmanuelle Latraverse, Hélène Buzzetti, Katya Gagnon, Lisyane Gagnon, Lise Bissonnette, Josée Boileau -- the latter the Editor in Chief of Le Devoir -- are often guest commentators on Rad-Can radio and TV political panels. The CBC News network has a largely female contingent of reporters and news readers populating its daily schedule. Hasn’t anyone noticed?
• Finally, Ms. Delacourt, your obsession with Tom Flanagan’s silly comment unfortunately suggests you can’t differentiate between his sardonic wit and his serious comments. I guess you’ve missed all the times Mr. Flanagan has criticized the PM, irritating committed conservatives like me. His commentary tends to be far less partisan than that of other members of “power panels” including supposedly objective journalists.
I also wonder why Scott Reid’s Nov. 29, 2008 call in a Globe & Mail to “kill him, kill him dead” referring to the PM didn’t alarm your fine sensibility as much as Mr. Flanagan’s did. Maybe I missed your reaction to that metaphorical death threat. Mr. Reid looks quite capable of literally doing the deed, whereas Mr. Flanagan might kill you either with his logic or his lame jokes.

[Louie]

How about instead of diving by gender the Star picks the best columnists and op-ed writers available? Why must society feel some artificial need to have things equally representative when it means a poorer product? Where does the Star rate on hiring those with mental disabilities? Surely, they make up a proportion of the population, why aren't they equally represented and given the same amount of space? This is a dumb argument and always has been. Get the best person for the job and let them do it. It doesn't matter if they are man, woman, trans-gendered, two spirited, black, white, purple, short, tall, blond or redhead or whatever. Stop trying to create an issue when there isn't one.

[SMcG]

In spite of Frank Docherty's manly comments, I will take you over his arrogant comments anyday. Miss you on the CBC programme Power and Politics, which I don't bother watching much any more. Really don't care for Evan's "Stephen Harper please make me a senator too" brand of political commentary. I might return if Ms Barton were the host more often.

[Anne Peterson]

I heard Flanagan's dirty old man comment about Peter MacKay's girlfriend too. Couldn't figure out why he remained on the program. Everyone on the panel ignored it so I guess they thought it had slipped through.

[Cathy Payne]

I noticed when a Canadian Conservative feels "manly" it is over Mr Obama's fantisized action. Tough Canadian weilding American power or overuse of it.

"Manly" and Harper don't co-exist in the killing idea. I'm happy about that as an accused hug a thuger.