A Rebuttal/Call to Action for Scott Gilmore

Blaming sexism isn’t going to change things. But running for office probably will.

There's been some negative reaction to Scott Gilmore's article on why women must run for office.  I can understand why; despite mentioning societal issues that discourage women from running, he doesn't address them.  Instead, much of his article reads as a lecture to women on how they should behave.

At the same time, it can't be disputed that Gilmore has some points.  Much like John Tory, Gilmore is simply offering advice to women that reflects the reality of political culture.  It's solid advice, if you want to get ahead in the game. 

This is an important fact to recognize, because if we don't we're just picking at the players instead of questioning the rules of engagement.

Gilmore has invited rebuttals in true Socratic fashion.  Upon receiving criticism, he has opened the floor for people to explain what they disagree with from what he's said.  He's offered to post criticisms (or at least refer them to : @susan_allan).  In fact, he's even offered to donate his pay for the piece in question to @EqualVoiceCA for a response.

I wouldn't call this a rebuttal, so much as a teachable moment, but I'd be happy to see him make that donation regardless.  The suggestion on who should write the rebuttal comes later.

So, completely discounting the pressure of 700 words and the need to spark a conversation to build audience for my publisher, here goes:

Gilmore's approach is stereotypical mansplaning - ie, explaining to women the way the world works and suggesting they need to act, in essence, more like me to get ahead.  We'll return to this point in a second.

From a female perspective, this can be completely condescending, as could be his replies to criticisms on Twitter - "tell me where I got it wrong" is an abdication of responsibility to be empathetic.  "I'll post your piece (ie offer you free promotion in this man's world)" comes across almost as salt in the wound.

The "I'll donate my money to a women's rights cause" is even worse - it's like that scene in The Godfather where Sonny destroys a reporter's camera and then throws money at the guy as compensation.  The basic message is "hey hun, this is just business.  Tell me who to write the cheque to and move on." 

Of course, the frame of response Gilmore suggests actually is how the world works; we do put the economy before people and focus on transactions over relationships/exchanges over responsibilities.  The recommendations he lays out in his article for how woman can get ahead are equally how business and politics work - hustle to get ahead, don't take no for an answer, Always Be Closing.

This is how the world works, but who made those rules?  Men did.  They did so using their sensibilities, their priorities and more than a little of their genetic predispositions.

In general, men don't look at the world the same way women do.  Part of this is culture, but even the sociological aspects simply drive behaviour, which is emotionally-based.  Emotions are the product of hormones - cortisol gets you jittery, dopamine makes you gregarious, testosterone makes you aggressive. 

In general, women and men have different hormonal balances.  Men have more testosterone; it makes them more aggressive, more narrowly focused, more inclined to hunt and kill than to communicate and nurture.

We're back to where Gilmore's missing the point.

As rules have changed and it's become easier for women to run for office (as Gilmore himself has indicated) and occupy senior positions in the private sector, we have seen an increase in the number of women in these positions.

By and large, these women are tough, confident, focused and competitive.  In short, they're more like the average man in their dispositions.  They're interested in growing their career and willing to put in the time to do so, even at personal cost. 

How many of these women have families?  How many of them are content to pay for someone else to do their parenting for them, in true transactional fashion?  This is worth thinking about for a second. 

Is it a good thing for both parents to be at work 12+ hours a day and to be focused on work when they're home?  Do we want all children to be raised by nannies or daycare employees?  Is that the next step in laissez-faire capitalism - the outsourcing of parenthood?

With this in mind, let's look at some of Gilmore's specific suggestions:

They may be pushy strivers, but women can and must do the same.

Get out there and convince people that you matter more than they do or, at the very least, that you make for a compelling meal ticket.  Get the kiddies flocking you to hand out their business cards.  Put yourself and your brand first, before all else.

Nevertheless, it’s a simple three-step process: Pick up the phone. Ask someone for money. Do it again.

It's not about building relationships - it's all transactions.  It's like picking up at a bar; go to the pretty girl and ask her if you can buy her a drink.  Then ask for her number.  Then ask her to go home with you.  It's as simple as that - if you're a man.

Perhaps it seems that simple for some men, but a majority of men don't do the heavy lifting in sales or relationships, do they?

Lack confidence? Find it. Sadly, men come by it naturally.

Exactly.  It's called testosterone.  To ask women in general to simply build more aggressive confidence is a bit like telling short people to grow taller or albinos to just develop more pigment - or to tell people suffering with depression to "just get over it."

Confidence, it must be noted, does not equate with competence.  Doug Ford is confident.  Mike Duffy and Dean del Mastro are uber confident.  So is everyone on Wall Street.  Watch The Wolf of Wall Street and remind me again how confidence is the be-all for success?

They make a conscious choice to sacrifice time with their family for time on the campaign trail. Men don’t believe you can have it all.

Of course not.  That's why the wife's supposed to be at home, watching the kiddies.  Perhaps Gilmore is suggesting women who want to run for office need to convince their partners to take on additional parenting burden.  Perhaps he's suggesting all elected officials (including trustees) should make enough to afford daycare.  Perhaps politicians shouldn't have kids at all - but then, how representative of society could they possibly be? 

Or are youth not to be prioritized in this success-first world?  That could explain a bit about our youth employment problem as well.

Gilmore closes his article with a call to action directed at women:

If you are a woman who believes there needs to be more women in politics, then do something about it.

Got it.  Political culture is the problem, women need to fix it.  The people there right now clearly aren't able to, but they're apparently not responsible for changing themselves or taking on different perspectives, either.

Write a cheque. Volunteer on a campaign.

What if you're a woman struggling to pay the bills and take care of the kids because your husband is out hustling for work and position?  You have neither the time nor the money.

Yes, blaming sexism isn't going to change things, but expecting women to play as men in a man's game isn't going to change things, either.  If anything, the laissez-faire approach taken by Gilmore - as well-intended as it may be - is part of the cultural problem that is chipping away at our society from all levels.

There is no question that our current models of politics, governance, employment, etc. are leaving far too many people shut out.  Shouting "heal yourselves" from the office towers and ivory towers doesn't help; if anything, it's merely a way for those at the top to abdicate responsibility for others.

When the unemployed give up on looking for work, when crippled infrastructure is ignored for more "low-hanging fruit" policy wins, etc, what results is a tragedy of the commons.

The solution isn't for more women to act like men to gain selfish success in a man's game; it's to change the rules of the game and start putting people before position and profit. 

Now, here's Scott Gilmore's call to action.

Instead of donating money to @EqualVoiceCA for a rebuttal of his article, Gilmore should do this.  He should do some homework and make an effort to understand why so many people are upset with the frame he presented.  Then, he should write a rebuttal to his own piece from the opposite perspective (free of charge) and then give it to @EqualVoiceCA to publish.

If he's willing to that, he'll have become part of the solution.

And I bet there'd be a host of women and men willing to celebrate him for doing so.

UPDATE 7 April, 2015

Men can certainly overplay their hand and alienate negotiating counterparts.  However, in most published studies, the social cost of negotiating for pay is not significant for men, while it is significant for women.

Think about that for a second.

If a woman marches into the boss' office, forcefully demands a raise based on how important they and their work are to the company, odd are high the boss will think to themselves "what a bitch" and the woman in question will suffer.

We want more women as CEOs, running for office, leading boards.  At least we say we do.  When women play by the existent rules to get there, though, we find them offensive.

The answer is easy. We need to change the rules of the game.




Men can certainly overplay their hand and alienate negotiating counterparts. However, in most published studies, the social cost of negotiating for pay is not significant for men, while it is significant for women.

Remember: We Asked for This

 

 

Through his restlessness and wielding of power, PKP has time and again proven his desire to be top dog. Anything else is for less-motivated souls. This means-to-an-end approach has meant a certain massaging of his message—he was a federalist when it suited his business purposes—and it’s no different with the Parti Québécois.

 

Pierre Karl Peladeau is a success story.  He's got a ton of money, he's got a strong record of private sector success, and he's clearly hungry for the job. 

 

That's what we want, right?  Leaders capable of getting things done, of building an enterprise, who have the fortitude to push for what they want?  Clearly, these aggressive, win-focused types are the ones who will give us what we want to win political office, because that's the way democracy is supposed to work.

 

Right?

 

It is more than a little frustrating, but equally as difficult to change.  We look for leaders with the qualifications to be alpha males and protect/provide for the herd.  But we aren't a herd, and what we should want are leaders who are better at committing sociology than they are at tearing down opponents.

 

How often have we heard that our social model is broken - yet we look to status-quo leaders to set things right?  How often has it been said that our economy is broken - but instead of looking at culture change, we're trying to pressure more powerless people to act like the powerful ones who broke the system in the first place?

 

We practice Objectivism and, whatever we say out loud, apparently have bought into the anti-community idea of individuals as islands. 

 

We get mad at opportunistic self-promoters and schemers, yet we don't change the game.

 

When we don't get the results we want, we have only ourselves to blame.  So, if we want change, don't get mad at someone else - we have to roll up our sleeves together.

 

Communicaiton: Wynning the Future

 

 

But Wynne is content with either co-operation or a fight, and Harper prefers the fight.

 

In one neat sentence, Paul Wells sets the scene for the culture change that's upon us.

 

On the one side, there are those who believe that fight makes right.  He who wins makes the rules is the political variant of he who has the gold makes the rules.  It's as true in its fashion of functionally fixed Stephen Harper as it is of ISIS or Uber - they aren't able to adapt, don't believe in dialogue and instead are trying to shut up or kill off anyone who opposes them.

 

Thing is, there is no other side.  Everyone who fights is crowding the same space.

 

Meanwhile, those who practice empathy, understand facilitation and are looking at structural solutions over individual wins are playing a completely different game.  They're changing the culture in little moves rather than killing foes with little cuts.  They're self-reflecting, adapting their approach as the times and demands of the landscape change.  They're making a point of understanding the fight guys so to know how best to approach them and find common ground.

 

Know your enemy.  Know your self.  Know the terrain.

 

If you can't negotiate with them - if you can't find common ground - then you still have the option to beat them.

 

That's the secret.

 

And it's why now's the perfect time to be committing sociology.

Super Together When We're Part of a Team

 

We hope that, you’ll feel compelled to join us and become part of our journey to make a difference in the world.

 

If we're waiting for Superman, it's gonna be a long, long wait. 

 

Wouldn't it be better to get super together?

 

More and more folk not only seem to be getting on this thought-train, they're succeeding as a result.

 

Just sayin'.

 

 

 

 

Emperors Don't Follow Laws

 

 

Mr. Perrin said the government’s biggest concern from its year of overwhelming defeats will be that its agenda is grinding to a halt. If that agenda “continues to be unravelled by the courts, it’s actually not governing the way that it wants to. It’s also politically quite embarrassing, and if people begin to think that the government is not understanding what the law is, and it’s not able to govern effectively, that becomes a very serious concern.”

 

I know I'm not the only one who feels far too many members of the Harper government (both elected and non-elected) feel that, because they are top dogs, they rest above the law.  They make them for other people and are held to a different standard, one they themselves set.  It's reminiscent of Karl Rove:

 

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality... We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

 

Call me sensationalist, if you feel the urge.  I can point to many, many sources of evidence to support my argument.  They can all be summed up in one line:

 

"We'll go over the heads of the members of Parliament; go over the head, frankly, of the Governor General; to right to the Canadian people." 

 

A government committed to democratic engagement recognizes that Parliament, a free press and independent courts are fundamental pillars of a democratic system.  Such a government, when faced with repeated opposition to their approach, would self-reflect a bit and consider if they need to change the way they operate.

 

This isn't how Harper's government has ever operated.  Faced with opposition, they don't compromise; they double-down, attack, do whatever they can to get their opponents to back down so that they may win. 

 

Lina Keene they could can; not-for-profits they can defund; they get more ink that Carol Todd, so reframing her positions to fit their narrative and then shutting her out is easy.  The media can be side-stepped, and has been. 

 

And yet the Supreme Court has been doggedly defiant of the Conservative Empire.  This is problematic, because opposition to their agenda, in their eyes, makes them look weak. 

 

The courts, however, aren't so easily suppressed or manipulated.  At least, not yet.

 

And that should be of serious concern to all of us.

Love this

 

 

But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely.

 

What man is a man that does not make the world better?

 

Getting to Yes: Sales, Sex and Parliament Hill

 

 

Objections are inevitable but should never be seen as a door slamming closed in your face.

 

There's no small irony that we're hearing about the awkward backroom sexual interactions of Parliamentarians at the same time they're making decisions about sex work.

One other piece to add to the mix, though - ABC.  That is, Always Be Closing - the mantra of the salesperson.  This concept of always being on the hustle is the narrative spine of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which is the system we have right now.  You have to push to get what you want.  No doesn't mean no, no is simply an invitation to probe further and get to yes.

 

Ever heard of Getting to Yes: How To Negotiate Agreement Without Giving In?  Ever hear of senior executive suggesting female employees need to be coming all the way to them and demanding promotions instead of expecting their work to be recognized on its own merits?

 

How about "kids these days, they're lazy, they aren't trying hard enough to get jobs, they want everything handed to them." ?

 

As the economy tightens and as the people at the top consciously or unconsciously start to reap the benefits of being kings and queen's of the hill, there's an increasing amount of pressure on everyone else to do the heavy lifting.  Which inevitably means sales.

 

Michael Hlinka is one of those that teaches young students to hustle, to set real-world expectations and fully admits that he abuses the perks of his position because he can.  The implication of what he says is "my position shouldn't exist as it does" but the lesson taught is "I get to there, my troubles are over." 

 

Don't take no for an answer.  Hustle.  Be aggressive in your sales.  It's all about completing the transaction - Always Be Closing.

 

After an interlude in the bathroom to collect her wits, she re-entered the bedroom with the intent of finishing her drink and leaving. But Pacetti pulled her onto the bed. They had sexual intercourse. She then left.

 

Good for Pacetti, right?  He kept at it; intro at the bar, convinced her to go back to his place, drinks, clarified intent, closed the deal.  Transaction made.

 

Maybe the lead was weak, but he got it done.  High fives in the locker room, or the boardroom for stuff like that.

 

That's not exactly how we want to look at sex, though, is it?  If anything, Bill C-36 suggests we think sex should be an act between an engaged couple and that sex-as-exchange is morally wrong.

 

Of course, sex and sales are completely different things, right?  We fully expect rational-actor adults to realize there's a difference between "it's just business" when hard-selling people for cash or votes but something sociological when it comes to reproduction.

 

But where are the examples of these rational actors?  If anything, the evidence suggests that the aggressively successful people are more, not less likely to act the same way in their professional lives as they do in their personal lives.  Of even worse, having recognized a veneer of civility helps make it easier for people to give them what they want.

 

Ghomeshi shocked a nation (more because we enjoy the notion of being shocked than any actual surprise that a celebrity would act inappropriately).  #beenrapedneverreported started uncomfortable conversations about male sexual aggression towards women while touching on the dearth of EQ there is at all levels of society (but perhaps excessively so at the top of competitive fields like politics).

 

Now, there's this. 

 

Shelia Copps kneed her attacker in the groin; a pretty clear indication that advances weren't appreciated.  I would suggest that Ms. Copps has more balls than many of the men on Parliament Hill and it's not a reasonable expectation for every woman to be as aggressively self-defensive as that.

 

Pacetti pushed for what he wanted and created favourable conditions (his place, his booze) to get it.  Is that much different than looking for a majority government to push through omnibus bills with?  Is it any different from a youth seeking work setting their sights on a job they want and doing whatever they can to land it?

 

Which could very well be what Alexandara Constantinidis did.  Or Michael Sona did, and proudly so.  Or Sebastien Togneri did, because that was the example he had to emulate.

 

Frankly, anyone who's scored successive wins in politics has played this game.  Adjusting policies to win votes, attacking opponents to reduce their votes or a whole host of less polite tactics are all part of getting to yes at the ballot box.

 

We have tried to silo our actions for messaging purposes, because that's how messaging works.  We have ignored what troubles us and focused on low-hanging fruit, because that's how quick wins get amassed.  Yet as a consequence to all this, we have waded into a tangled, messy reality that we're trying to mask with a veneer of civility that is rapidly flaking off.

 

There are no individuals who bear the blame; there are no innocents.  We will never get out of this sticky mess of cultural dissonance without asking some hard questions of ourselves, our environments and our expectations of life, of work, and of society.

 

We have to grow past a functional fixedness on short-term wins and start discussing actual solutions.  This can't happen if we focus on transactions - we need to engage in relationships.  That means moving beyond the WE want THIS from THEM framing into something more #howmightwe move forward together?

 

If ever there was a time to commit sociology, it's now.  Right now.