[Recently I posted this on the GPC-members listing and felt I would add it here...I know I'm going to get slagged for it and yet I felt you guys needed to know what I had to say about us and this. We can discuss.]I find that these gender equity discussions often are couched in the assumption that men can in no way adequately represent or speak for women. For myself it matters little if there were ten men at the mikes or ten men on council and only two women in both instances. As long as the underlying theme and the message is my message I don't care who delivers it. I disagree with gender equity (and I know I will get blasted for saying that) in this form. Actually I disagree with it in any form. I disagree with anything that forces people to do something, which regulates and dictates that we must have 50/50 balance or exact representation from the population stats. Who says? If a guy stands up and talks and says what I want said and represents me in a way that I feel is appropriate....good. I don't care about whether the person is male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, white or black. And If I don't like what they have to say, I'll make a change.
This entire discussion assumes the more recent idea that we can only 'speak of what we know'. And therefore a white male can in no way 'speak' to a white female and vice versa. Then it becomes race, and sexual orientation, and then life experiences. Then a middle-aged woman won't be able to speak to a young woman's issues and seniors? forget about it. We'll have more caucuses than people. It will never end. I disagree with women caucuses as I disagree with youth caucuses as I disagree with gender equity. I'm sure someone will think I believe in utopia and they may be right. But I believe that all of these extra groups and special rules assume that we as humans have a complete inability to understand each other. And I don't believe that. If we continue this argument down its slipperly slope we'll have it that no person can speak for another. And each caucus will hold but one person.
I believe in representation. If a white male stands up and is willing to represent my interests, the interests of any immigrant community, and the interests of the homeless and I feel that at the very least he represents my own, I'll elect him. It's not about gender to me. It should never be about gender or race or sexual orientation. It's about getting said what I want said. I don't believe that I always have to do the talking just because I am a woman. And I certainly don't believe that a woman can better represent me. I can't chose like that.
And so I will continue to fight against gender equity and instead continue to fight for adequate representation. Certainly in my EDA, which has a fair more men than women on the exec, I trust the 'guys' to adequately represent my interests and my concerns. I don't need to be there all the time to 'watch over them' and I don't feel the need to find more women and get them on to the exec to rectify any imbalance. I like the executive the way it is. And I like it when we vote in a new one. Whoever shows up, shows up. If they have our interests be they male or female...woo hoo. If we scare away some it's not because of them being female or a racial divide it may simply be that they don't share our vision. I would sincerely regret ever making that a basis for gender bias.
Certainly in Carleton Mississippi Mills we are doing what needs to be done: forwarding the green vision. At times, yes, I bring a different perspective as a woman. But so do they as men. And over all I believe that we have the same goal. Why? Because I trust them.
