“Vote for women.” This is not only my personal mantra, but also a saying that is emblazoned on my favorite sweatshirt.
I bought the shirt when I was a politician and wore it proudly at community events in my constituency and on the campaign trail. Today, you can see me wearing this frayed and much-loved shirt when I go to yoga practice or for an afternoon stroll through Henteleff Park.
Voting for women is a great idea and a remarkable cause. I believe that until we achieve parity in public office, we will not see public policies that are attuned to and reflect the needs of the majority of people in our democratic society.
JOHN BAZEMORE / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILES Choose women based on their abilities, not their gender.
Take childcare, for example.
If this area of public policy had been seriously addressed 25 years ago, we would not have the challenges that families face today, where they must begin planning for child care before they even become pregnant. Sure, there were women who got elected 25 years ago when this need was becoming more pressing, but they were vastly outnumbered.
Public policies did not reflect societal demands, partly due to a lack of representation.
Even today, women only hold between 25 and 30 percent of elected positions in the country’s parliaments and the House of Commons. Ask any of them and I’m sure they’ll tell you that it’s a lot of work to be a minority among decision-makers.
From experience, I can say that it is not always easy to go your own way, even when it is the right thing. I can point to numerous things that I could have and perhaps should have insisted on, but did not. I hope that the next generation of female politicians will not be a minority at the decision-making table.
That’s why I wear my t-shirt with pride and am always happy to support women in their choice.
Having said all of this, do I believe that women should be elected specifically or solely because of their gender?
Not at all.
Yes, representation is very important, but when I cast my vote or decide to support a candidate, the most important thing is to choose someone I believe is qualified and competent. And if that person happens to look like me, all the better. But that is not a deciding factor.
And I’m not alone in this. A team of researchers from the Pew Research Center south of the border found that only 18 percent of Americans think it is particularly important that a woman be elected US president during their lifetime.
In other words, for voters, eligibility is more important than representation.
Hopefully the Kamala Harris campaign will take note and not repeat history in which a gender narrative plays a major role in the story of her future electoral success or defeat in November. None of us can afford to ever again see post-Hillary Clinton headlines claiming she lost because of her gender and America is not ready for a female president. This unfairly placed the blame for Clinton’s electoral loss on us feminists who supposedly did not do their part to break down barriers, rather than attributing it directly to a poorly run campaign.
This time, I hope Harris will give voters the opportunity to elect a proven candidate who is not only electable, capable and competent, but who also represents women and minorities. She should be judged, evaluated and elected to the highest office in this country based on her merit, her intelligence and because she is the better candidate.
Gender should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement, but rather as the icing on the cake.
I would also like to see Canada’s next woman elected prime minister. But more importantly, I want her to be someone who represents the principles of good governance that will earn her respect here and abroad, who will advance policies that will improve all of our lives in the ways that matter most to us, and who represents values that reflect the majority of Canadians.
When that happens, she will leave a legacy for future generations: the belief that women can run and win elections because they are strong, capable and competent, not because they have met certain criteria and are just a symbol of something bigger.
Let her choose because she is the right one.
Rochelle Squires is a politician on the mend after 7 1/2 years in the Manitoba legislature. She is a political and social commentator whose column appears on Tuesdays.
Rochelle Squires
columnist
Rochelle Squires is a politician on the mend after 7½ years in the Manitoba legislature. She is a political and social commentator whose column appears every Tuesday.
Read full biography
Our editorial team relies on a growing readership to advance our journalism. If you are not a paying reader, you are welcome to become a subscriber.
Our editorial team relies on its readership to be successful journalistically. Thank you for your support.
