Last night at an event hosted by the Walkley’s Foundation and Women in Media Tracey Spicer asked an interesting question. Are women’s voices on the internet an echo chamber?
It is a pertinent question that I was thrilled to answer yesterday of all days. On a lot of days, most days, it feels like an echo chamber. It feels like the people who read and comment and share articles about women and gender inequality, are the ones who need them the least. They are the converted.
They know the social case, the business case, the economic case for the equality of women. They know the statistics back to front. They know the pace of change is glacial and the consequences diabolical. They know that change is necessary and they know how change can be effected. And, yet, they cannot effect this change alone.
Change requires a meaningful recognition of the problem and a genuine commitment to address it, from many people but, in particular, from people who have the power to create change.
All of us have power but some people have more power. The unwillingness – whether deliberate or not – among so many of those charged with actual power to create change is infuriating. To say the very least.
That dynamic is why, yesterday, eliciting a small response felt big. Gigantic even.
On Wednesday I wrote with disbelief about the line-up of keynote speakers at a banking and wealth summit. The problem with heralding 10 males as the authoritative voices on the future of banking and wealth is not merely symbolic or substantive. It is both.
It sidelines the voices of women and perpetuates the status quo in banking and finance, which is why the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick said the line-up is problematic.
“It is the tip of a much broader problem – where are the women in senior roles in banking and finance? That’s a genuine issue but if you have the intent you will do some innovative thinking,” she told Women’s Agenda.
“Unless we actively and intentionally include women the system will unintentionally exclude them. And that’s what has happened here. If you approach a conference the way it always has been done it won’t deliver. Having a level of gender equality needs to be core. 50:50 will be difficult but zero isn’t an option.”
Yesterday I spoke to the summit organisers who confirmed several women had been approached to participate in the event but had been unable to make it. By highlighting the unacceptably homogenous line-up of keynote speakers on Wednesday it was clear I had created some difficulty for the people behind the scenes.
That didn’t sit with me particularly well. Believe it or not, I don’t relish making anyone’s life difficult so the temptation to apologise and walk away was there. But what would that achieve? Nothing. Change won’t happen without push back, even when it makes people uncomfortable.
So I persevered. I stated my argument for why the original line-up was not acceptable – even if attempts had been made to secure female leaders – and asked for a response.
When I was told the Financial Review’s editor-in-chief Michael Stutchbury would respond I was surprised. I have previously taken issue with the Financial Review’s publication of Mark Latham’s abhorrent columns and had not received a substantive response.
But yesterday I did. The fact Michael Stutchbury responded directly to the issue I raised was heartening. And, even better, I secured a small change. The image of the keynote speakers has been updated and now features 4 women.
It might be small and merely symbolic, but symbols are powerful. And the fact that this one time, a legitimate complaint actually garnered a reaction felt pretty symbolic too. It felt like, maybe, we aren’t just speaking in an echo chamber. Maybe other people are listening too. I’ll keep trying it out. Can you please too?