Men don’t need to rescue women to achieve equality

‘I don’t want an environment in which men are vilified and blamed for every little thing. I don’t want to normalise or laugh off terms like mansplaining.’

There’s a radio ad I heard this past week during a visit to my home town, Perth. It seemed to be on high rotation; I heard it every time I jumped in the car.

The ad starts with a serious male voice asking us to consider how long a period of silence should be. How long is too long? On first pass, I was curious. (Kudos to the creative team and copywriters, the hook worked well.) What are they talking about, I wondered. What kind of silence and why?

As it happens, this ad suggests that if the silence felt too long, then consider Australian women who are subject to ongoing (their premise) subjugation and misogyny in the workplace.

It goes on to suggest that men are responsible for this ongoing silence, and unless men stand up and speak up we poor, helpless women will be doomed for all professional eternity.

This is obviously my paraphrase, with a dash of sass to boot, because it was at the point of the great reveal that they lost me. I’ve forgotten in the space of a few short days which organisation owns this commercial but, to be honest, it doesn’t matter. They lost me with the same, tired old narrative. Men = oppressors. Women = victims.

Hold that thought while I give you some context to my views. A lifetime ago I worked in commercial television and, after nearly a decade, I quit when I found out I was being paid 50 per cent less than the bloke in the same role. When I quit, I didn’t blame the patriarchy. I simply realised I had a choice to make based on the situation at hand. I made that choice and owned the consequences it came with.

I voted with my feet. And I didn’t do so from a place of financial largesse or knowledge that I had another job to go to. I started my company (so, essentially, was unemployed for the first few months). Humbly and gratefully, I say that next week marks my 19th year in business and during that time I have seen significant and important change in how women are treated, remunerated and valued in corporate life. These are changes for the better, undoubtedly, and some industries have progressed further and more swiftly than others.

But not all forward movement is advancement. It’s my view that some of what I’ve seen, especially in recent years (and this is where I come back to that cringe-worthy commercial), is regressive rather than forward moving. One of which is this idea that we need men to rescue us. Women don’t need “champions of change”.

Does it not occur to anyone else that these ideas are infantilising and diminishing? I want colleagues. Peers. Equals. Not some corporate white knight. I wasn’t raised to see my gender as an impediment or something to leverage. Why are we inadvertently sending that message to this generation of young women?

We have robust conversations about advancing women in leadership, into board roles and C-suite positions. It’s a high-profile, shiny argument to prosecute but there’s nothing by way of reciprocity, nothing that speaks to a desire for true equality.

‘It’s almost as if when it comes to gender parity, the conversations aren’t welcome unless the outcome is preordained.’

When was the last time we talked about getting more men into nursing? Teaching? Early learning and childcare? About advancing men who come from fractured backgrounds and disadvantage? These are the conversations that should be happening if we are really talking about gender parity.

Another observation I’d like to make, and I guarantee it will be unpopular with the cool kids, is that the push for equality has in many cases delivered an unintended revenge of sorts. Payback.

I don’t want an environment in which men are vilified and blamed for every little thing. I don’t want to normalise or laugh off terms like mansplaining. Pale, male and stale. I mean, apart from being just an example of downright appalling manners, it’s the same kind of ridicule of men that would get a bloke fired if he spoke about a woman that way.

Yet these terms seem to be acceptable as long as they’re used in the context of “fighting” for equality. If you’re a woman in corporate life and you think it’s OK to use these terms when describing your male colleagues, then I would politely suggest you are part of the problem.

We risk further division. We risk further fracturing. And we risk pushing men out of the conversations we should be having together because let’s face it – if you’re a bloke in corporate life in 2022, opening your mouth and having an opinion on certain topics can be a risky business indeed.

It’s almost as if when it comes to gender parity, the conversations aren’t welcome unless the outcome is preordained. And that’s before you even acknowledge that it’s not just men who stymie the careers of women.

Which brings me back to that ad. I don’t believe true equality can be achieved when one half of the equation is constantly painted as the villain. And I’m not going to be silent about that.