pontification, democracy and the masculinized space of formal politics

As we enter the final days before the Ontario election, the gendered nature of formal representation explodes my frontal lobe, and not in the good new Feist album(!) way. It feels like a tired complaint at this point, but one I cannot ignore.

Last week I attended the final Ottawa Centre leaders debate at St. Paul's University. Ottawa Centre is the dense middle neighbourhood of downtown, loosely hugged by the Ottawa River and Rideau canal. It's reasonably diverse for Ottawa (though very white and Catholic/Protestant) with a mix of students, professors, artists, professionals, singles, families and a thriving queer community. It's a tight district this year. Typically NDP, but historically Liberal, the two front runners will be hoping their door knocking translates to turnout on October 6th.

10 humans sat on the debate panel, one of whom was a woman. She was running as an independent and was not able to comment on many of the issues raised in questions by the public. Sadly, I'm sure she was read as an ignorant and even apolitical woman. I think she deserves to be praised for running and advancing her platform (linking undergraduate students [in arts] to careers that reflect their skills and interests), but I wish she had bothered to familiarize herself with broader issues so people could not simply write her off.

The leaders debate was one of the most excellent I've seen. It was truly all-candidates and everyone showed up. The four front-runners knew the issues well and avoided cheap shots (for the most part). Not everyone was equally skilled, but that is the exciting and aggravating nature of debate. Questions from the audience and twitter were relevant and challenging, ending with, "When push comes to shove, do you align yourself more with the values of your party or your constituents?" BAM. Elicited decent responses too.

As expected, there were the usual pontificating peripheral candidates. This makes me cringe as I simultaneously value the all-candidates space and desire detailed responses from front-runners. This issue collides with the issue of recruitment for formal politics in general - the people who know the issues intimately are not running (they're busy learning and writing about the issues intimately) and the people who are running should be commended for their bravery and willingness. Remembering this, it's still frustrating to hear a speaker relish in talk time when their comments are unfounded.

Of course this argument would apply to anyone monopolizing time in the public sphere, but it is particularly enraging to me that the sphere is dominated by men. 

Last week, I attended a lecture by a well-known US media theorist from Urbana-Champaign. She analyzed the discourse of historical Trojan condoms advertising, particularly pointing to the marketers' use of pirate imagery in the interwar period to defend the brand's legitimacy in pharmacies when no-name condom brands were selling for lower costs underground.

There were two men in the room and about 20 women. Both men were the only ones to interrupt during her talk, and they were two of four humans to ask questions at the end. One simply launched into questions (that were mostly comments) as soon as the floor was opened. This will not come as a surprise to anyone, and I can already predict a myriad of justifications for both the men's and women's behaviours in these and other settings. Regardless, the dynamic is unacceptable. I had things to say, but lost motivation in the corrupted space. I darted glares at one of the men. Sure it was immature, but I've run out of patience for finding ways to be productive in such settings. Next time, I may scream, "BE MORE SELF-AWARE."

One of my major frustrations in life is the masculine nature of formal Canadian politics. I've resorted to finding hope in voting on Thursday for Kevin O'Donnell, a geeky white man who likes public transit. Hopefully with more Kevin O'Donnell's in the house, there will arrive more women.