Every time there is talk of positive discrimination and parity, some rummage through their large closet of shirts to tear off while singing the same refrain. “We cannot correct one discrimination with another!” Why would a candidate’s gender come before their skills? »
The new shirt-tearing session took place after the adoption at the Québec Solidaire (QS) congress of a resolution aimed at achieving parity in the caucus: in the event of a by-election in the next year, a measure temporary affirmative action will ensure that the QS nomination process will be reserved only for women.
In the eyes of some, the measure would be as sexist as the evil it claims to combat. Worse still, it would open the door to incompetent women in skirts who would steal the place of otherwise more competent male candidates. A stubborn myth that resurfaces every time someone says the word “quota” in a debate on parity.
Those who believe that “welcome ladies” translates into politics as “welcome incompetents” will be happy to learn that corrective measures to achieve parity, far from leading to a general decline in competence in circles of power , rather have the opposite effect where they are put in place1.
“If you think that a woman is not as competent as a man, please arrive in 2023,” wrote former QS spokesperson Manon Massé on X.
Unfortunately, it seems that many are struggling to get there, stuck in the social elevator of the 1950s which always favored men without anyone crying discrimination or incompetence.
I am not particularly fond of positive discrimination measures. I would love to live in a perfect society where these imperfect solutions would be useless. But it is clear that we do not exactly live in this ideal world.
To achieve parity and equality, patience and goodwill are not enough. Unless we consider it reasonable to wait another century or two to get there.
I’m not exaggerating… If the trend continues, it will take 169 years to reach political parity, according to the most recent global report on gender inequality from the World Economic Forum.
“We will not destroy the patriarchy with suggestions! », Launched with a touch of humor Maïka Sondarjee, member of QS, who participated in the discussion preceding the vote at the congress.
The joke, which was taken up by numerous media, was launched by Maïka Sondarjee to close an intervention where she explained why it seemed important to her that the QS proposal was not distorted by an amendment allowing local associations to opt out. to the obligation to present only female candidates if they so wish. QS’s recent history shows that non-coercive tactics have not worked, she stressed. In the last elections, they did not allow QS to achieve parity. Remember that there are only 33% women in the solidarity caucus. However, several studies tell us that, for a group to have influential power within an assembly, its representation must be at least 40%. Hence the need to turn to more courageous and more ambitious proposals than simple suggestion.
Maïka Sondarjee, who is the co-initiator of the Expert Women initiative, launched in 2019, is well placed to know that it is not enough to encourage society to change for real change to occur. Noting an under-representation of women cited in the media, she set herself the objective with Women Experts of achieving gender parity in the media by 2025. Why? Because women make up half of the population. If we only cite them one in three times, this inevitably has consequences on our social debates, political decisions and the allocation of public funds…
To a certain extent, the underrepresentation of women cited in the media is a simple mirror of their underrepresentation in circles of power. There is obviously no question of forcing journalists to achieve parity representation in each of their reports or of forcing experts to give interviews against their will.
“We encourage, we provide training to women, we raise awareness among journalists… We use all these non-coercive methods. But parity in the media has not yet been achieved! » Even if the work of Women Experts has raised awareness, it has not reversed the trend.
“It’s going to take longer. But in elections, we have a precise means that could be used to go a little faster! », notes Maïka Sondarjee, referring to the measure adopted by QS to get closer to parity.
The idea behind such restrictive measures is not to exclude men, but to correct a systemic exclusion of women.
In his plea for parity Women and power: necessary changes (Leméac), Pascale Navarro clearly explains the mechanisms of systemic discrimination which ensure that women remain under-represented in politics.
“Because of traditions and a history in which power has been exercised by men, the system in which we live has been established in a particular way which gives them certain advantages (higher salaries, advantage of powers of decision, authority). Due to this system, women have been kept out of various aspects of social life. This does not mean that men want it or that women are happy with it. A system can transform when we take the steps to get there. »
These measures are well known and documented. Simple suggestions and good intentions are not part of it. It definitely takes tough measures. Otherwise, we will continue to wait for parity, without ever reaching it.