Brenda O’Neill, University of Calgary
Guest Contributor

It’s safe to say that the issue of ‘women in politics’ no longer generates the attention that it once did. The 1984 leaders’ debate between John Turner (Liberal), Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) and Ed Broadbent (New Democratic Party) on such issues as pay equity, affirmative action, abortion and child care seems unlikely to be repeated in the near future. Women’s issues simply do not generate this level of attention. An exception can be the appearance of women running for high political office – Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin most recently – but even this is no guarantee that coverage of their campaigns will focus on substance over style.

But lack of attention to these issues doesn’t mean that they are irrelevant. These issues are important because gender remains an important element for understanding contemporary politics. It matters because despite the narrowing of many differences between women and men, for example in their educational, income and occupational statuses, gaps remain. And women and men continue to exhibit behavioural and attitudinal political differences that defy simple explanation.

When I’ve examined gender gaps in voting, for example, I’ve found evidence that women and men do not often make the same choices, with gender gaps varying over time and across countries. (more…)

Wendy Robbins, University of New Brunswick
Guest Contributor

“Many of us in this room have worked our whole career to make things fairer, and now you are pushing us right back!” My comment was a spontaneous reaction to René Durocher, who was outlining the Government of Canada’s new multimillion-dollar Canada Research Chairs (CRC) Program to a meeting of the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada (HSSFC) in 2000. The several hundred HSSFC members on the Chateau’s ballroom floor sprang to their feet in a standing ovation. My comments had struck a deep chord. I was beginning my first term as the HSSFC’s Vice-President, Women’s and Equity Issues; I saw it as my responsibility to take action.

Despite touting “excellence” and “innovation” in 2000 when it was introduced, the CRC Program was structured to entrench the status quo. It further marginalized humanities and social sciences researchers. It also ignored the academy’s systemic disadvantaging of equity-group academics.

When the first appointments to the CRC Program were announced to senior members of the research community, I started counting those Chairs given to women, to men, and those that might be either. I did a rudimentary gender analysis, which the CRC secretariat under Marc Renaud later confirmed: my gender analysis revealed that only 14% of the early Chairs had gone to women. Only 22% of Tier II Chairs and a mere 10% of the more prestigious Tier I Chairs went to women. All of the top Program officials were men, as was 83% of its international panel of peer reviewers. I reported the troubling appointment data in the first of a series of annual “Ivory Towers: Feminist and Equity Audits.”    It made national news in May 2001.

In 2003, with the legal advice of Rosemary Morgan at the Canadian Association of University Teachers, a team of eight women from across Canada,  laid a formal Complaint, alleging discrimination before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (more…)

Linda Trimble, University of Alberta
Guest Contributor

Seven years ago Jane Arscott and I wrote a book called Still Counting: Women in Politics Across Canada.  We gave stark evidence of the electoral glass ceiling for women. At that point, 85 years after most women won the right to vote and stand for office, women held only 20% of the seats in Canada’s parliament and legislatures. Sure, 20% was better than nothing. It was better than the mere 2% of seats women held in 1970, the year the Royal Commission on the Status of Women released its report, urging governments to do something about this appalling under-representation of women in politics. Sure, 20% in 2002 was better than 10% in 1984. But 20% is not even halfway to equal, and, we argued, not half good enough.

Jane and I suggested that the electoral glass ceiling for women was set at 25% of the legislative seats for the foreseeable future. Of course we hoped we were wrong. In one sense, we were wrong – we set the bar too high. The 25% ceiling has still not yet been reached. Right now, in 2009, women hold 23% of the legislative positions across Canada. Clearly we were right about the seemingly impervious barriers to women’s political equality. The electoral glass ceiling shows no signs of cracking, never mind breaking.

So Jane and I are still adding up the numbers. (more…)

Susan Prentice, University of Manitoba
Guest Contributor

Photo courtesy myfear on Flickr.

Childcare politics are again a hot issue on Canadian campuses. In late November, a coalition of faculty, students and staff dissuaded the University of Victoria Board of Governors from signing a contract with the commercial childcare chain Kids and Company, although it is on other campuses. In northern Manitoba, at the University College of the North, the administration is proceeding to build two state of the art childcare centres at the Thompson and the Pas sites. In September, Ryerson University held a conference on the role of early childhood education and care services as ‘lab schools.’ Over May 21 and 22, 2010 a national student’s organization will host ‘It Takes a University: Childcare and Postsecondary Education‘ in Vancouver.

This kind of interest and activity is long-overdue. It has been 40 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended a national daycare system, and 25 years since Rosalie Abella’s Royal Commission on Equality in Employment proclaimed “child care is the ramp that provides equal access to the workforce for mothers.”

Post-secondary educational institutions have strong reasons to see early learning and care as essential campus services. One place to begin is with students. Today, about one in ten post-secondary students is a parent, who must juggle school and family caregiving (Lero, Smit Quosai, & Van Rhijn, 2007). The challenge is even more difficult for Aboriginal learners; almost one-third of Aboriginal university students have children, as do almost half of Aboriginal college students. A recent parliamentary committee report on Aboriginal students finds “family duties and financial insecurity” are the two most powerful deterrents of their success. Thus, if universities and colleges want to accommodate student parents and become more welcoming to Aboriginal students, their campus childcare programs are as important as their libraries for learners.

Childcare is irreducibly connected to gender equality.  (more…)

Paul Kershaw, University of British Columbia
Guest Contributor

Forty years ago the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended family policy innovation. It did so because the gender division of caregiving is a primary source of inequality for women. Today, Canadian women still do not have the family policy they deserve. A 2008 UNICEF Report Card ranked Canada last among 25 countries. It shows Canada lacks policy to promote time to care personally; policy to synchronize caregiving with earning and political participation; and policy which expects men to share responsibility for this synchronization equally with women.

It’s no surprise, then, that Canada does not even make the top 30 countries according to the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report. By contrast, the countries with the best family policy on the UNICEF report card rank 1, 2 and 3 for gender equality – Norway, Finland and Sweden respectively.

As the reach of the Royal Commission regrettably faded from family policy discourse by the late 1980s, a new discourse filled the void:  one about brain science and child development. (more…)