With the election of Pauline Marois, five Canadian provinces and territories will
soon have female premiers: British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, Nunavut and Newfoundland and Labrador. With the way things are going in B.C., however, we might be back down to four come the May 14 election.
According to the latest Angus Reid poll, Christy Clark's approval ratings are slipping - she's at 29 per cent, only a few points away from both Jane Sterk (Green, 25 per cent) and John Cummins (Conservative, 24 per cent), while NDP leader and potential future premier Adrian Dix is flying highest with 48 per cent.
While the poll states that this downswing has little to do with the Northern Gateway pipeline, for me at least, Clark's handling of the Enbridge situation reaffirmed my frustrations with her government's policies.
(It's probably not surprising to many that the only response from our government I would have been happy with was a firm "No, get out.")
Clark opposed the project on the grounds that Alberta was not adequately compensating B.C. for the environmental risks the pipeline poses. This opened her up to the criticism that this is a heck of a way for provinces to co-operate, and put her at definite odds with Premier Alison Redford.
That Clark chose to frame her opposition in terms of "we aren't being paid enough to risk our province's environmental integrity" rather than "this is bad for the environment, full stop" is disappointing.
With this decision, Clark told Redford that we care more about money (couched as risk compensation) than we do about our environment - which deeply mischaracterizes the bulk of anti-pipeline sentiment in B.C.
But while I find Clark's rhetoric disappointing in some ways, I have to admit that I am enjoying watching two female premiers go head-to-head in a battle for provincial supremacy over oil profits.
Oil is not typically regarded as a women's issue, and yet neither politician is being questioned on her ability to lay down policy on this matter, nor are they taking pains to couch their positions in terms of their gender, as female politicians are often required to do when they step beyond the realm of acceptably "feminine" talking points. Neither woman is talking about families when she should be talking about oil, and this is a thing worth talking about.
Because as disappointing as it is, even in 2012, women in politics are still defined by the "wives and mothers" shtick. Just take a look at last week's Democratic National Convention in the United States.
Michelle Obama's speech on the first night of the convention was the most celebrated of the entire evening, yet it was a speech that deliberately stayed within the confines of Michelle's role as "Mom-in-Chief." She kept to non-threatening topics such as family, children's health, supporting the troops and what a swell guy her husband is.
It's true that Michelle Obama is not democratically elected, but she is a political figure. She is also a Harvard-educated lawyer, while Dr. Jill Biden is a university professor. Even in the most powerful country in the world, for the First and Second Ladies to have stepped even a little bit beyond their roles as wives and mothers would have been damaging to their husbands' re-election bid.
(Though I would be remiss if I did not also observe, as many women of colour in the feminist blogosphere pointed out, that celebrating black motherhood is still a revolutionary act, and even the incredibly popular Michelle Obama has a long way to go before she can reverse the harm that the "welfare queen" stereotype has done to black women in the U.S.)
Hillary Clinton, arguably the most politically powerful woman in the United States, is constantly barraged by sexist commentary from adversaries and pundits alike.
Even Chris Matthews, who agrees with her politics, has criticized her for being too "shrill." People focus on her hair, her husband, her makeup, her physique and her demeanour, anything but her achievements.
So while of course Clark's premiership has not been unmarred by sexist commentary (any woman in politics who makes mistakes will be accused, either implicitly or explicitly, of gender-based weakness), it sure is refreshing to compare the ClarkRedford clash with the very careful, conservative presentation of gender in the lead-up to the American federal election.
If Redford and Clark are going to fight over the best way to destroy our environment, at least they're challenging gender stereotypes along the way.
