By Shelley Luedtke
聽聽 聽A friend of mine was learning dialogue for a promotional video she had been cast in. Just prior to taping she was given a set of blocking notes and discovered that whereas some of the others in the video were named, she was simply noted as the female. She brought considerable expertise and experience to the project yet was made to feel her appearance was requested simply for the sake of gender diversity.
聽聽 聽California has a new law mandating companies have at least one female on its board by the end of 2019. By the end of 2021 the numbers are to increase proportionally. Financial penalties will be imposed for those not in compliance; $100,000 initially and $300,000 for further violations. California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson said 鈥済ender diversity on corporate boards is associated with increased profitability, performance, governance, innovation, and opportunity.鈥� I guess these companies weren't already aware they were in the business of profitability. Thank goodness someone pointed that out to them.
聽聽 聽I received an honour in university called the Louise McKinney Scholarship, an award named after a woman born in 1868. She was a leader, activist, organizer and the first woman sworn in to the Alberta Legislative Assembly. To be eligible for the scholarship I had to be a Canadian citizen, Alberta resident, and full-time student nominated by my university. Nothing about gender. But shouldn't an award intended to honour a trailblazing woman automatically be awarded to a woman? Well, if movements across some campuses get their way, the answer is yes.
聽聽 聽I recognize I live a life that is privileged. I didn't have to fight for pay equity or the right to vote. Monumental efforts and tremendous sacrifices were made by people that came before me and I am a grateful beneficiary. The fight continues in some sectors where further equality is needed, but in other areas what is being fought for now; parity or partiality?
聽聽 聽 In the early 1970's the top five orchestras in the United States had fewer than 5% women. By 1980 it was 10%, and soon jumped to 25%. Women now outnumber men in some places. Those doing the hiring must have been told to increase the quota of female musicians, right? Wrong. They simply changed the way auditions were held. Candidates began auditioning behind screens so that decisions were based entirely on musicianship. Imagine being assessed on talent and ability alone. Isn't that what we should all want?
聽聽 聽Few applications or board appointments can be handled this way but it is a lesson in what happens when candidates are evaluated on what they bring, and not looked at as a requirement to fulfill mandated quotas. Women want a place at the table--not be a placeholder.
聽聽 聽There is another piece of the California legislation that is intriguing. It states a female is 鈥渁n individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual鈥檚 designated sex at birth.鈥� That is the irony in all this for me. We are increasingly being asked to move toward recognizing a genderless society--or at least one in which we each get to form our own definition of gender. We are told there should be no designation strictly male or female. These boxes are being removed from some birth certificates and forms. So which is it? Should gender define who sits on a board or is there no longer reason to consider gender?
聽聽 聽Being female is a piece of who I am, as are any aptitudes and abilities I might have been born with. The rest is shaped by each experience and individual that has left an imprint on each moment. My faith, education, relationships, resume and interests have allowed me to grow and develop in each role and responsibility I have taken on. But no matter what opportunities might come my way I want to know it was because of my character and not my chromosomes. We don't want any achievement diminished by giving an impression it came, not because of A's, but because of XX's. That's my outlook.
