Candidate treatment
Dear Editor:
Whether the election is for prime minister, president, premier, governor, MP, MPP or mayor, when a man announces he’s running for office, we hear words like experienced, strong, qualified, a proven leader. We debate his ideas, his policies and whether he’s the right person for the job.
When a woman runs? She’s ambitious. Not brilliant, not highly educated, not accomplished, not qualified. She’s just ambitious.
Ambition isn’t a bad thing. In fact, I’d actually argue it’s a prerequisite for anyone who willingly signs up to have strangers dissect every sentence, every facial expression and every decision they’ve ever made. But have you noticed how differently we use words? When a woman runs and she’s called ambitious, it’s like someone is whispering in the background, “Bit full of herself, isn’t she?” Or she’s “too emotional,” “too aggressive,” “too nice.” Funny how that works.
Many women entering politics (or any leadership role) today have spent decades proving themselves before they ever print a campaign sign. They hold PhDs. They run successful businesses. They lead classrooms, they lead charities, corporations, they lead their peers. They’ve managed budgets, built organizations from scratch, solve complex problems and somehow they’ve still remembered it was pajama day at school. Some have qualifications that could wallpaper an entire campaign office. Yet somehow they’re still asked to prove they’re “ready.”
Ready compared to whom?
Because we’ve elected plenty of men whose greatest qualification seemed to be owning a suit and speaking confidently(ish) into a microphone. Just turn on the news these days, it’s everywhere.
Politics requires ambition. Every single person who puts their name on any ballot believes they can do the job. That’s literally the point. Yet when women do it, many times their ambition somehow becomes their description word instead of their qualifications.
Language matters because words quietly shape perceptions. When we repeatedly describe one group of people as collaborative, cooperative leaders and other as only ambitious, we’re sending out subtle messages that one’s desire to lead is expected, while the other’s is somewhat less than unattainable. Maybe that’s why women often feel they have to be twice as qualified just to be considered equally capable.
The next time a woman announces she’s running for office, maybe let’s skip the commentary about her ambition. Tell me about her experience, her education, her ideas. Judge her by exactly the same standards you’d judge the man standing beside her.
Kristen Reilly,
Fergus