Before my “Canadian Democracy” seminar a few weeks back, students were required to read an article by M.P. Michael Chong called “Rethinking Question Period and Debate in the House of Commons.” This article made a number of suggestions as to what could be done to improve Question Period by first pointing out what was inherently wrong with it. Chong focused on three critiques in particular: that Question Period is rhetorical, incomprehensible, and is not conducive to women. Though I tend to agree with the first two assessments (questions are often answered with questions, and the sheer noise level can be deafening), the feminist in me cannot agree with Chong’s last deduction.
In his article, Chong equates Question Period to a “testosterone-laden, anger-filled screaming match characterized by aggressive body language” and won by “those who can yell the loudest”—a reality which he implies deters female politicians from participating in Question Period and deters women in general from joining politics: I take issue with this inference.
To me, Chong’s argument sounds sexist. Characterizing passion—which can be mistook for aggressiveness—and assertiveness (accompanied often by loudness) as purely male attributes, or attributes inherent to the natures of men (testosterone), is quite frankly an erroneous postulation. His line of argumentation can be summarized like this: “Question Period is punctured with loud, determined, forceful and—at times—angry discussion; therefore, men tend to dominate Question Period.” This is nonsensical and chauvinistic (though Chong may not be aware of it). It denotes that women are shy wallflowers too delicate and modest to ever raise their voices high enough to compete in such debate and that they cannot thrive or function in the face of loudness or brazenness because it is not in their natures to do so. The assumption that men function better in such a setting than women do is what I like to call stereotypical bullshit.
I’m not personally a confrontational person, but put me in a position where I have to defend something I believe in to a man who’s yelling at me from across the floor, and I’m going to yell right back in his face. I know many women who would do the exact same.
My suggestion to Chong: Argue that the conduct of Question Period is not conducive to effective debate and therefore not to politicians—especially those who’d rather have civil conversations rather than irrational vocal battles.
Martha Hall Findlay certainly can hold her own just fine!
As I said in class Chong's argument is absurd women can participate in heated, passionate, aggressive debates just as any man can. Most women in parliament do know how to hold their ground and I believe that Chong is just making up excuses for the over all inefficiency of the House of Commons. But I do not believe that one can completely judge the success of the Canadian political system based on one hour of a broadcasted debate.
ReplyDeleteChong's argument is ridiculous-how can he suggest that only men are able to hold their own in a heated debate? Like Brooke said, he is trying to use this stereotype as an explanation of the seemingly chaotic way of Question Period. It's 2011 Chong, it's time to let go of the male/female debate, realize the equality between the two, and focus on the real issues effecting question period.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what's been said.
ReplyDeleteWhat i will say is that i love the conviction and vocalization of passions that characterizes Question Period, our representatives cannot get away from the tough questions, cannot get away from being accountable to the people they elected.
Juxtapose this to the House of Representatives in the United States which is more akin to a tee-ball game than a forum for public discourse. With political staffers looking for any and every legislative loophole to duck out of votes and committee hearings, high-tailing it back to their office to avoid having to-god forbid-speak publicly.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog.
As a gender studies and anthropology student, I couldn't but help notice that you wrote that you were previously in anthro studies.
In regards to your piece above, considering culture in the field of anthropology... one would expect that society as a whole raises different genders, differently.
In regards to your second paragraph, you summarized with your third paragraph saying Chong's argument is sexist. However from a feminist perspective, should we not acknowledge that the gender gap in the way males and females are raised? While men are taught to be the ideal from the beginning, women are taught to be the other. (see Women Studies 101)
Hence, when it comes down to it, men would be more suitable for the role of the CURRENT questions period, something that Chong is trying to change. It seems that Chong has the right idea in demanding a change paradigm in the way our current politics work.
From a cultural anthropology point of view, this seems to inherently make sense. In our society where there are different gender messages (in almost all societies!), we must acknowledge the difference between the two genders. In that light, the goal is not to make the room 'equal', but to make it 'fair'. Changing the current format which favors men moreso than women, seems to be very fair.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.
-Hans
Thanks for the comment hansvader77,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wrote that my roommate was previously in anthropology and subsequently explained that I didn't really blame her for having little knowledge about politics. I, however, have always majored in political science.
I believe that yes, males and females are raised differently...but how differently ranges from family to family, does it not? My mother never taught me to back down to a man, or to not defend my beliefs. She never taught me that women shouldn't be assertive, loud, or forceful if they are in a position where they might have to be.
I stand by what I said. His argument to me (and apparently to some of the other independent women who have commented on this post) is sexist. What would make more sense to me would be to say that for those PEOPLE or politicians who tend to be more soft-spoken, or are adverse to raising their voice (or confrontation), it would be more fair to change the current format of QP. Not women specifically.
I'd also like the point out that, as politics tends to be male-dominated, it isn't likely that many soft-spoken, confrontation-fearing women choose to be politicians in the first place. They likely expect the atmosphere and enter Parliament ready for a fight. They'd definately be prepared for such an atmosphere if they take political science in school, as the discipline is also mostly male-dominated.
People are not only raised by their parents. There are also influences from their peers, the school system, media, etc... aka society. Society as a whole raises our youth, imprinting the values that society as a whole deems important and relevant.
ReplyDeleteNow, what values are imprinted? At the most basic age, boys play with mecha, and girls play with dolls. Boys play-pretend to be heroes and superfighters while girls play house and pretend to throw tea parties. Overgeneralizing? Perhaps... but you cannot deny that in North America, being raised in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, that this was the norm rather than the exception.
So now, the common accepted facts within anthropology and gender studies, is that men and women are raised differently. Women are NOT as assertive and strong as men. This is accepted. Why? Because in gender studies, we wish to change that. We wish to change the status quo and change the injustice that currently exists. However, you CANNOT change something if you first do not acknowledge it. If you're going into politics, and plan on being a feminist and a female defender, I would hope that you acknowledge certain truths first and foremost.
Further, you also complement and agree to my argument with your last point. Politics IS male dominated. Females entering the field will try and mimic their male counterparts in order to fit in and succeed, however this is not a natural action for them. They have to fight against societal upbringing.
Now, I ask you, which group of people tends to be soft spoken? Chong's piece (which you should have linked, as is common blog etiquette), was meant to promote change. If he wrote something completely politically correct, it would not have raised eyebrows as much as it did now... and his purpose was to create conversation for change. To that end... he was successful.
Chong's purpose was to show make the question period comfortable to all... men and women alike. You specifically said that women had to be prepared for a fight when they get to parliament... however Chong would have it so that the yelling and screaming of question period would be abolished... I certainly don't see how women, we would see that as a bad thing.
-Hans(hansel) Vader
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Hans. You make some valid points, but it is clear we are approaching the topic from two very different perspectives (anthropological vs. political, and male vs. female...feel free to correct me if you aren't male).
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, society's 'norms' concerning women bother me, and someone telling me that because of my biology and the tendencies of my gender I'm not well equipped to participate in the same forum a man can BOTHERS me. You say it is a fact that women are not as assertive as men, and I don't believe that. Not one bit. At least not in the society I'm currently operating in. I know just as many assertive men as I do women, and just as many passive men as I do women. So no, I don't accept that statement. Take my opinion of Chong's argument as my way of challenging the status quo, not skirting around "facts" established by society.
And yes, women may have to fight against the predispositions of society, but I cannot accept in this day and age that this reality means our natures are any less assertive in terms of biology. We fight because some men, consciously or not, don't believe our opinions are as valid as theirs.
As for not linking the article, my apologies:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/lop/infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=190&art=1296
Posted on behalf of 'joe', whose comment showed up in my email, but not on this blog (This weird glitch is starting to really bother me...):
ReplyDeletejoe says:
I don't think that Chong is saying that all women, due to their gender, are not as well equipped as all men to participate in the Question Period as much as he is saying that the Question Period, in current form, is not attractive to the majority of women as a forum.
He states repeatedly that "Question Period is not conducive to attracting women to public life". It may be an unfair generalization to say that the current Question Period is non-conducive to the participation of all women, or specifically to the participation of women politicians. However, it may be fair to say that it IS non-conducive to attracting women to future political careers, and to retaining those women currently participating in that forum.
Of course, this relies on the establishment that the majority of women are less conducive to such an aggressive forum than the majority of men, which is what I believe hansvader77 was trying to point out. Is it not true that, by genetic disposition or cultural pressures in development, the average woman is less aggressive than the average man, and thus is less conducive to such an aggressive forum of discourse?
I'll leave it to someone with more expertise in the literature on that subject to determine that, but if that is the case then it can not really be said that Chong is technically wrong here. However, that's probably something he shouldn't have taken for granted in his article, at least without explanation.