Mansplaining Isn't Just Sexist, It's A Bad Political Strategy On the Part of Canada's Conservatives

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of a leadership position must be in want of a man to explain it to her.

At any given time, there is a loud chorus of male politicians (and opinion columnists) generously ready to offer their sage advice on how women in powerful positions should do things, whether or not they themselves have even close to the same education or experience.

The difference these days is that powerful women aren't taking it anymore.

Just this past week, three important female Canadian leaders dared to speak out despite the mansplainers, and it was glorious. Calling out mansplaining and sexism in general is having a moment, not just in Alberta but across the country, as women dare to name the real nature of the criticisms levelled against them and refuse to back down despite them. 

Canada's Governor General Julie Payette found herself the beneficiary of the ample generosity of men sharing their dubious wisdom when she dared to speak about science at a science conference. Payette has two degrees in engineering, was director of the Montreal Science Centre for three years, has been to space twice, was the first Canadian to work on the International Space Station, and speaks six languages. She is an extremely intelligent person and a scientific expert by any definition of the term, so it should be a shock to exactly no one that she has some opinions on science. However, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer immediately posted on Facebook to let the world know Trudeau (and by obvious extension Payette) had "offended millions of Canadians" by expressing support for Payette's comments in defence of science. Scheer does not speak six languages (he's apparently not even fluently bilingual), has never been to space, and after he got his single BA in the humanities he worked as a waiter and insurance broker before entering a political career. No one is ever going to invite him to a science conference to speak as a science expert. Yet Scheer still felt perfectly entitled to worry aloud that Payette's fact-based speech and Trudeau's defence of it might have hurt the feelings of people who still make their major life and political decisions based on the whims of invisible sky men and horoscopes.

As the Beaverton hilariously satirized Scheer's outrage, “We should respect the beliefs of both people who believe in science, and those who believe the scientists should be burned at the stake for such heathen behaviour and witchcraft.” This is so on the nose it almost hurts. People afraid of the power and personhood of women once burned them alive, and even today, still persist in labelling them as hags and witches for daring to be seen speaking in public, too often threatening women with real violence if they don't shut up. Payette is only one of the latest to experience this.

Of course it's no surprise that Scheer, who has long been courting the support of the most socially conservative elements in the country , tried to turn Payette's much-needed comments into the start of a religious war with his political rival Justin Trudeau. He has to seek all the attention and name recognition he can get, considering his Rebel Media-alum campaign manager's current strategy is to try to help people remember Scheer's name by having him awkwardly wave at random suburbanites while wearing blue plaid .

What was more disappointing, however, was that Scheer was backed by multiple columnists across the country who were there to explain to Payette what her role actually was, and what she should actually have said about science, and especially in what exact tone she should actually have spoken. I'm sure every one of them would bridle at the idea they are sexist, but the problem with gender bias, the thing that makes it so insidious, is it's too often unconscious. All of the people who wrote on the incident grudgingly agreed Payette had said nothing factually wrong in her remarks, since she is of course correct that the vast majority of the science shows humans are causing climate change, sugar pills don't cure cancer, and evolution happens. The best point they could make was she took a mocking tone when she said those facts. I don't recall any of those same columnists lecturing Prince Charles on his role or his "tone" when he called climate change deniers the “headless chicken brigade.” In fact, he was cited by a professor of the Westminster system as a good example for Payette because Prince Charles knows how to state his opinions as "a plea rather than a poke." I suppose to some being called a headless chicken is simply a gentle request to be more intelligent, but I would think to most being compared to a bird that has literally lost its brain is quite the vicious poke indeed.

This double standard demonstrates yet again the real problem here is no one likes a woman who dares to condescend, which really means a woman who speaks as though she knows more than other people about something - even if she does. The most supportive writers out there still said Payette's tone needed some moderation for being too "haughty." This mountain of unsolicited advice therefore all ultimately came down to, “Avoid having any kind of actual opinion on science, that thing you're best at, because you're a political figurehead,” which is itself just another way of saying (nicely and in enough words to satisfy an editor or to make a speech out of it), “Shut up and smile.”

One Macleans columnist even opined that Payette should only speak in such a manner that “even the most conservative conservative in southern Alberta is able to listen politely... without feeling like she’s being lectured by Trudeau’s lackey.” Using gender inclusive language in that sentence was a laughably transparent attempt to hide the sexism, because we all know the “most conservative conservatives” won't listen to anything a woman says anyway, let alone one who's been to university and is therefore a #liberalelite. “Lectured” is also a loaded term thanks to a largely unconscious gendered bias shared by both women and men that makes people perceive women's voices when they speak as shrill, as unpleasant, or as incompetent, especially when they speak forcefully or assertively in a leadership role, a problem that has been demonstrated in multiple studies like this one. In other words, the perception that one is being lectured by a woman might have little to do with her actual tone and a lot to do with her gender and position of power. Prime Minister Trudeau is also the leader those same “most conservative conservatives” love to hate in large part for daring to say publicly he is a feminist and not matching their antiquated ideal of a manly heterosexual man (the real reason they so often sneer he was once a drama teacher).

Fortunately, the effect of this collective hand-wringing and patronizing to Payette about her role in our country has come to pretty much nothing. She remains our Governor General; she remains an expert on science; and she remains an inspiration for many. 

Notably, but not gaining nearly as much ire or attention, Payette was not only backed by the Prime Minister but also federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.

Could not be prouder that @GGJuliePayette stands up for the science on climate change. We live in a good country, Canada. 🇨🇦 https://t.co/anytq51ohO

— Catherine McKenna (@cathmckenna) November 2, 2017

McKenna took her own mansplainers to task this month when she confronted a Rebel “reporter” about repeatedly calling her “climate Barbie,” an obviously gendered slur meant to discount her ability to effectively do her job and imply she's just a dumb blonde.

In response to McKenna's stand against the use of the term, the Rebel's Ezra Levant doubled down on his sexism and critiqued McKenna for supposedly being "appointed to fit a gender quota" and "unable to control her emotions." McKenna hardly burst into tears while assertively calling out the Rebel, but the idea that women are too hysterical and emotional to effectively lead is an old and persistent stereotype that was frequently levelled at Hillary Clinton, who lately looks like a Zen monk compared to how emotional the current male US President gets over Twitter. (The perceptive among us will also note that the most conservative conservatives never seem to have a problem with Ezra Levant's own extremely condescending or angry tone. Instead, they seem to reward him for it with donations.)

McKenna has previously pointed out the #climatebarbie label is an example of how women are treated in politics. It's a great sign of the times that outside of the Rebel crowd, McKenna's refusal to ignore the Rebel's clear bias against her was roundly applauded. As Tabitha Southey pointed out, there were still some who tried to shame McKenna for her reaction, calling on her to have a "thicker skin," but by and large we are in a cultural moment where people are no longer laughing with the men who resort to such pathetic jokes at the expense of female leaders. As Southey writes, "That may be the sea change you’re feeling, and what some are responding to. At its heart, what we are watching unfold is the tragic story of The Man Un-Laughed-With."

And this brings me back to my home province, Alberta, where born-and-raised Albertan and Premier Rachel Notley made mansplaining headline news when she refused to just take it on the chin as (now former) Alberta Party leader Greg Clark tried to mansplain the benefits of pipelines to her. A day later Notley did the same when the UCP's Jason Nixon when he tried to credit his own party for giving her the bright idea to champion pipelines, introducing the word "hepeat" into the Legislature and even defining it for us. 

Bravo to this, I say.

It was a bit disappointing to see so many progressive men on my social media feeds decry this as childishness, as a lack of decorum, or as a waste of time. I don't think they understand how radical and how important it is for the real problem to finally be named and shamed out loud, especially in Alberta.  Frankly, I can see why our Premier is getting a little sick of it and why she's decided to start explicitly demanding respect. She's faced a torrent of criticism of her leadership and her government ever since she took the province away from the conservatives for the first time in over 40 years, and despite the fact she's proven herself time and time again to be a competent and centrist leader.
 

George Clark of #kudatah infamy made his little splash at the beginning of her term by mansplaining petitions, despite the fact he himself hadn't a clue how they actually work. His followers remain a reliable source for the most sexist comments about the Premier on Facebook. One has only to venture into the comments of any post on his personal profile, the base of his support, to see the Premier called a bitch, a twat, a cunt, or a hag, none of which George ever seems to have a problem with even as he calls the Premier herself a bully. 

Right now Notley is facing down the threat of newly minted UCP leader Jason Kenney, who seems to fancy himself a portly John Wayne, riding in from the east to drawl out, "Now lemme tell you something, little lady," and act out the socon fantasy of putting Notley firmly over his knee for a good spanking. 

His entire campaign has been characterized this way, ever since Don Braid speculated Kenney might "ride in on a rebranded conservative charger." As CBC's Aaron Wherry put it last July, "...Kenney's move to Alberta, apparently to bring conservatives together and then vanquish the socialists, seems nearly mythic: the boyish prince returning to restore order to the kingdom and preserve the greater cause of a conservative Canada." 

Kenney is here to not only take Alberta back from the NDP, but most importantly, from those little ladies like Premier Rachel Notley and Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd who can't possibly understand or handle the big responsibility of running the Albertan economy. In essence, his entire campaign is about mansplaining Alberta, not only to Rachel Notley's NDP, but to all of the Albertans who voted for our current government. We just didn't know what we were doing when we went and ticked the box for the NDP, according to the likes of Kenney, and he's here to make it all better by taking things back to exactly the way they used to be.

This, I think, is his big mistake. 

Mansplaining is rooted in an assumption of male authority, an entitlement to have and expound upon an opinion whether or not it is informed, and whether or not the man in question is truly an expert. The conservative belief they are entitled to power in Alberta is no less of an assumption of natural authority, and to date they still have not seemed to look in the mirror themselves and realize it was the outdated views of both the former Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, their inability to get with the times on issues of diversity, LGBTQ rights, and equality for women, or the real concerns of Albertans, that actually lost them the throne. The current obsession with vote splitting as the source of the right-wing's loss ignores this other obvious problem; they were out of touch with an increasingly young and diverse Alberta, an Alberta that no longer believed leaders who just said, "Trust me, I know what's best for you!" even as they squandered the province's oil wealth and cut recklessly away at the healthcare and education all Albertans need.  

Instead of learning from the past, the UCP is doubling down on their promise to repeat their past mistakes. It's practically their campaign slogan. 

This 1950's style, father-knows-best paternalism was still on full and odious display in Kenney's failed battle over GSA's, during which he literally argued that parents know best what their children need rather than acknowledging sometimes children, especially LGBTQ children, know best what they need to feel safe and accepted. This is the real meaning of the phrase "parental rights;" the idea that parents have final authority over the lives of their own children, up to and including their gender-expression and sexuality. This completely ignores the not really so radical notion that in fact children have rights and opinions too, and are not their parent's property to do with as they wish, especially when it harms the very children such old-school parents claim they only want to protect. 

The old Tory attitude is also still evident in Kenney's main platform and his promise that he will balance the budget in three years by making drastic cuts to Alberta's per capita spending. This is his all-too-familiar plan to "save" Alberta's economy, and Albertans have already taken this medicine before many times, with arguable results. Premier Notley's NDP government has instead chosen to face the precipitous slump in oil revenue by investing in neglected infrastructure and refusing to take the economic pain out on education and healthcare, for what feels like the first time in Alberta's history. It's a strategy that seems to be working, and one which many Albertans still support. I bring it up here as part of a discussion about mansplaining not only because Kenney is showing the very same arrogance and giving the very same solutions we've heard time and again all the way up to Prentice, but because the inevitable UCP insistence on cutting healthcare and education would have dire consequences specifically for women. One has only to check out our labour force statistics to see why. As the 2016 Alberta labour force profile on women highlights, 82.1% of the employees in health occupations in Alberta are women; 223,500 women in Alberta were employed by the health care and social assistance industry last year. That amounts to 21.7% of all employed women in Alberta. Healthcare was also an industry where there was a significant percentage of growth for women's employment. Meanwhile, the third largest industry employing women between 2006 and 2016 was education, where 102,700 Alberta women were employed. If Kenney wins, then, and we suffer through cuts to these industries, it will be women in Alberta who disproportionately feel the pain of job losses.

Times have changed, and they are still changing. This is evident not only because female leaders are finally willing to publicly name the sexism against them, but because millennials have started to exercise their voting power and in 2019 millennials will be the largest voting bloc . The baby boomers have had their day. Alberta is even younger and more diverse than the rest of Canada. 

The UCP knows this, Kenney knows this, and they also know that millennials don't tend to agree with them on everything from climate change to gay marriage to abortion, and often view strong socially conservative stances on those issues as deal-breakers. Their big plan to try to counter this "hard-wiring with collectivist ideas" as Kenny has called it, is apparently with an expensive ad campaign. I like to believe that'll be a tough sell, because they clearly have no new ideas to offer, just the same old same old, no matter how hard they try to rebrand and repackage it. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

What they really should try is to check their entitlement and arrogance at the door, come up with a new idea for once, and stop mansplaining Alberta to Albertans and Canada to Canadians. Millennials - and our new, strong feminist leaders - are starting to show they are simply not going to stand for it anymore.