What role can men play in feminism? It’s a question that inevitably arises when contemplating gender equality and the answers vary. Some say men can’t be feminists while others are happy to ascribe the label to any man sufficiently committed to women’s freedom. I fall into the latter. It’s not to say I don’t recognise some contradiction exists – the crude fact is, broadly, men still stand in the way of women — but I cannot see how gender parity is achievable without the support and commitment of men. Not in a paternalistic, patronising sense because I don’t believe women can do anything on their own; I know that’s not the case.
But as it stands men and women co-exist and if we want to dismantle the barriers – explicit and implicit — that disadvantage women, men have to be involved in that process. Because power – in terms of money and decision-making – still sits overwhelmingly disproportionately with men. Unless and until those men are committed to creating change by sharing that power with women, the status quo will reign. (That is unless legislative quotas are imposed which would provide the seismic shift that would render men’s input in the process less crucial.)
It’s why Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick conceived the male champions of change program. Without buy-in from male leaders, even the most industrious, talented and meritorious females would struggle to effect meaningful structural change. I wish that weren’t the case but when just 3.5% of chief executives at the helm of our 200 biggest companies are women, it’s simply the way it is.
I gave the issue of the role men play in the pursuit of gender equality some thought over the weekend. At the end of last week the finalists for the inaugural Women’s Empowerment Journalism Awards were announced and in one category, for online story of the year, two of the three finalists are men. (A disclaimer – I am a finalist in another category.)
This, both understandably and predictably, attracted criticism. It seems to reinforce the point Ruby Hamad made very eloquently here, about society valuing men’s opinions over women, even on topics directly affecting women. Awards designed to celebrate the empowerment of women celebrate the contributions of male journalists – it’s not hard to see the sticking point. But I am not convinced it’s entirely wrong. I suspect that won’t be a particularly popular opinion so let me explain.
One of the WE Journalism Awards finalists is Sam de Brito for a column he wrote about female role models. I wrote about it here afterwards and said I agreed wholeheartedly with De Brito that the absence of a broad variety of female roles models is a real problem.
It seemed many of you agreed as that piece attracted an extraordinary response. (Our real role model feature is in the pipeline.)
If we want change, which I desperately do, and if it’s not coming by way of legislation, which seems extremely unlikely, change will be incremental and men need to be involved in the process. To be clear, by ‘involved’ I don’t mean simply putting their name on a list. I mean involved to an extent that they actively do things to shift the balance of power: include gender targets in executives’ KPIs, undertake unconscious bias training, speak up about sexism, write columns about gender inequality, mainstream caring responsibilities, set the tone for a culture that values women, lobby the government on policies that will potentially impact gender equality.
I will celebrate anyone who does any of those things. Male or female – I welcome any and every attempt to challenge the status quo. Sam De Brito is not the first person to have ever written about the limited role models on offer for young women and having written one thoughtful and persuasive column on the topic hardly qualifies him as a male champion of change. But I certainly wouldn’t denigrate him for it. I accept in this case, it’s complicated by the fact his column took aim at some female websites for not focusing on the right areas. That is one way to get a group of female journalists who have spent years writing about gender equality offside.
Even still, my impression on reading his piece was that it was an important contribution. Not least of all because it was written by Sam. People expect writers like me to talk about gender equality; it doesn’t make it less valuable but it makes it less surprising. If we want to change the landscape for women this conversation needs to extend beyond Women’s Agenda and other women’s websites. It needs be mainstreamed. That’s why I want more male journalists and business leaders and politicians and teachers to talk about the issues that Sam did.
Even if we disagree with points within that conversation, to me, the more valuable thing is the conversation is taking place in the first place. I am not suggesting that every time a man ventures into this terrain we ought to shower him with sycophantic praise and celebrate his bravery. That’s ridiculous. But I do think it’s worthwhile and important to welcome men to engage in this conversation.
I am concerned that if we disparage male writers for venturing an opinion which offers a male perspective on an issue that impacts women, we stifle the potential for change. Will it not serve to discourage that male, and potentially many others, from engaging again?
I realise that making that suggestion might be construed as me being too concerned with being nice, wanting too much to be liked, or wanting male approval. It’s not. I am less concerned with being nice than I am concerned with creating an environment that is conducive to change. I might be wrong but I think the more willing men and women are to challenge the world around them, the more likely we all are to change it.
As I see it, a father writing about the world as he’s coming to see it, through the eyes of his young daughter, is welcome. Even if the impetus stems only from a desire to empower his daughter, that is a worthy position and one I am reluctant to knock anyone from.