The all-male city council of Toronto, 1952
Except for Mel Lastman’s essentially uncontested re-election in 2000 (with all due respect to Tooker Gomberg, RIP), it’s been almost a generation since Torontonians have witnessed a mayoral race that involved no competitive female candidates.
Which is just one of several reasons why Shelley Carroll’s decision not to run is such a let-down. Without her, the field of major contenders will likely settle out with five white males, all but one of whom are middle-aged.
Yes, we should celebrate the fact that an out gay man may become the mayor of Canada’s largest city. And the presence of several very different candidates of Italian ancestry attests to the distance Toronto has come from the 1950s, when the police would harass Italian immigrants for the crime of conversing on the sidewalk.
But the absence of mainstream women and/or visible minority candidates from the ballot is troubling, and underscores a trend identified by Dave Meslin at betterballots.to. I’d say this slate deserves at best a C+ for diversity.
There are all the usual ironies — Toronto’s ethnic composition, David Miller’s campaign to win the vote for immigrants and refugees — as well as some lesser ones, including a fairly determined recent campaign by the city and council’s women’s caucus to mentor young women interested in leadership and public life.
There are very specific reasons why Carroll and Karen Stintz aren’t on the ballot. Carroll would be just another Liberal in a Liberal-heavy race. Stintz, who was clearly interested in the job, put her own aspirations on pause when John Tory began hinting at a re-run last fall, and now is in no position to make up for lost time.
Yet apart from the particulars, is 2010 just a gender glitch or is there something else lurking in the City of Toronto’s political culture that seems to be militating against women who have their eyes on the top job?
It’s an interesting question to ponder, given that women have tended to be relatively more successful at the leadership level in local politics for various reasons, not least of which is that municipal councils don’t have anything like Question Period, which has always been fundamentally a boys’ game.
At the upper levels, only two women have ever become provincial premiers after a general election, and Kim Campbell’s short-lived tenure in the PMO remains a historical footnote.
By contrast, 15% of all sitting mayors across Canada were women in 2009. In Greater Toronto, there have been numerous successful women mayors — not just Hurricane Hazel, but Oshawa’s Nancy Diamond, Brampton’s Susan Fennell and former Halton Region chair Joyce Savoline. The 416, in turn, had June Rowlands (1991-94) and then Barbara Hall (1994-97), as well as Frances Nunziata, elected in the former City of York as a corruption fighter, plus stalwarts like Joyce Trimmer of Scarborough, and True Davidson of East York.
And while women account for slightly less than a quarter of all elected municipal politicians, an analysis [PDF] by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities found that women outnumber men among chief administrative officers.
So what gives with the megacity? It is the fundraising demands? The media cauldron that is the lot of the mayor of the City of Toronto? Or the prospect of dealing with the dunderheads who’ve been clogging the arteries of council for years? Please post your theories below.
photo from Toronto Archives
31 comments
Perhaps one of the reasons might be found in the article above:
“Carroll would be just another Liberal in a Liberal-heavy race. Stintz, who was clearly interested in the job, put her own aspirations on pause when John Tory began hinting at a re-run…”
Is it still expected of women to step aside if there’s a man interested in the prize? I certainly hope this isn’t the case, but these old ideas and attitudes run deep.
There are already (at this date 2010/01/18) 20+ people running for mayor of Toronto. However, only one person can win.
There was an article on a similar topic in the Star on Saturday (disclosure – Catherine Porter is a friend of mine) but neither it or the article above really answers the question, not least because that article concentrates on why women “feel they have to be geniuses to run for office” rather than why our electoral process doesn’t strain out “the men who don’t know enough”.
One issue worth discussing is the effect of multiple terms on choice to run – whether women are more likely statistically to see politics as a 5-10 year pursuit (outliers like Hazel notwithstanding) but men are more likely to be okay with doing the same job for 20-30 years like many current members of Toronto City Council, creating incumbency and sometimes a sense of entitlement.
The costs of running for election are significant, and it would be useful to explore what running for office successfully costs and what can be done to reduce those costs and thereby electoral spending limits, which would have the happy consequence of reducing the impact to the taxpayer of the ridiculously high tax breaks on contributions without going the whole hog and having public financing of candidates.
To play the ‘game’ of politics, a hint or smattering of sociopathy is definite plus. Alas the incidence of such in females is considerably less than that of males. Thus males, may have an easier time and are more convincing when misleading the public. Saying such things as ‘no new taxes’ or “we will hold tax increases to the rate of inflation’ in a manner that is highly believable to those not willing to look beyond sound bites.
Jane Pitfeild? Seriously?
So we should have the token female candidate?
Why not have run off campaings to find the token female, minority, and generic middle aged white guy.
Scottd, yes — you may not agree with her, but Pitfield, a long-time city councillor, wasn’t a fringe candidate and came away with about 30% of the vote.
John Tory outranked Karen Stintz by the simple fact of having a higher profile and more entrenched connections.
Looking at the way candidates and support are falling out of the sky from other levels of government, this campign is clearly about taking control of the mayor’s office by the “big players”. Those players, like it or not, are from the old boys’ clubs, and they will support one of their own for the job.
The City can have all the diversity aims and policies it likes, but our society and its power brokers are still overwhelmingly white male. That’s why we have the candidates we have.
I’m not sure how it relates to gender, but my concern about mayoral candidates relates to the vitriol -the absolute irrational hatred- that some of public feels towards the current mayor. It astounds me that people are willing to express such hatred towards an elected mayor. This concerns me because anyone who is considering to run for mayor knows they will be subjected to this. To me, this suggests that only particular ‘character types’ will throw their hat in the ring, and these ‘character types’ don’t have the qualities of someone I’d like to be mayor.
White men in suits. Yawn, 1985 called, it wants its knee-jerk political correctness back. I mean, really, who cares? Do we want to start implementing quotas for public office now? Really? I don’t think there’s any theory behind this, just that for this particular race there doesn’t happen to be any women running. The article itself said that if it weren’t for Tory pondering a run, Stintz would have made a go for it (and probably will again in ’14). “White men in suits”, such a useless, lazy, tired tripe, please retire it.
Incidentally, how diverse is the staff at Spacing?
If you took a photo of our contributing staff it would look like a Benneton ad.
Also add Ann Mulvale of Oakville, who was mayor from 1988 to 2006 and of course Marie Curtis, Reeve of Long Branch from 1952-1962 and a member of the Metro Council Executive in the earliest years of Metro government. Outside of the GTA, Anne Marie Decicco-Best has been mayor of London Ontario since 2000.
“Pitfield, a long-time city councillor, wasn’t a fringe candidate and came away with about 30% of the vote.” But a lot of that was anti-Miller voting, not pro-Pitfield.
I came across this article and I find the topic interesting so I will offer my thoughts (I will not; however, comment on my personal decision not to run for Mayor).
The 2010 Mayoral Election has just begun and already it is seen as contest between white men. This is unfortunate because there is a female candidate and by all accounts she is accomplished in business and committed to the race. Her name is Sarah Thomson and she is the publisher of The Women’s Post and according the Women’s Post website, the magazine is now reaching more mid to high professional women per issue in Toronto than The Globe and Mail, The National Post or Toronto Life.
I have met with her and she seems very bright and passionate. She hasn’t held political office before, but neither has Rocco Rossi so that should not be a reason to dismiss her candidacy. She also has some impressive financial backers.
The question will be whether she can break into the more mainstream media to build her name recognition or use new media to reach-out directly to voters.
I wish her well because the City – not to mention aspiring female candidates – will be the beneficiary if she can become a contender.
Maybe Miller’s 2003 ad campaign worked too well, and people just don’t think that women “look like a mayorâ€.
Thanks for the link to Better Ballots John! There are many reforms that could make a difference on Council such as at-large seats, term limits, ranked ballots, and finance reforms to level the playing field.
I did a research tour in the US in November and encountered many American cities with female Mayors. Very few of them use our simplistic election model. They mostly use some form of run-off (like Houston, Atlanta and San Fransisco) or multi-member districts, like Cambridge MA which elected the first African American lesbian mayor in North America using a proportional model called STV.
Karen Stintz makes an excellent point. This is the second media piece I’ve read recently that omits the fact that Sarah Thomson is running, is female and is competent enough to be thought of seriously.
Why is she being ignored and made to feel irrelevant by articles such as this?
The reason Sarah Thomson isn’t being considered a legit candidate is that she has no background in politics, has no platform on her web site (except to complain about garbage pickup and the TTC) and never shown an interest in city politics as an advocate or commentator.
That’s not meant to be a slag against her, but at THIS POINT in the campaign, she is next to non-existent for the above reasons. That’s why the election season is 10 months long. She is not being ignored; rather she has done nothing to warrant any kind of exposure.
If she wanted to make sure she was included in mainstream media coverage AT THIS POINT in the campaign, she should have started a very public blitz in 2009 and have been building a base of support.
I can put it another way: I want to play hockey, so I sign up to try out for a team: just because I’m in training camp doesn’t mean they will pay attention to me. I have to stand out and make them notice my skills. The guys who have tried out before, or played for the team, will get more attention from the coaches because they have paid their dues to get there.
I wish Ms Thomson luck, but there should be no complaints from her or her fanbase at this time. She has a lot of work to do and shouldn’t be expected to just be considered a contender. No matter how much you like or dislike the current batch of Five White Guys, they have been in the political and public trenches for ages and have been working to get to this position for a long time. Any one that wants the mayors job has to work very hard to get it. And some people will have an obvious head start.
@Victor
You’re missing the point. This article’s thesis is about female candidacy, and it’s because of THIS that the author should have done his due diligence and included Thomson.
He could have even stated that she was irrelevant, out of her league, under-prepared, etc – But he should have mentioned her.
Leslie G. this article is about mayoral candidates being a more or less homogeneous group. If this was a indeed your primary concern, then you probably should be advocating for the inclusion of all of the emerging candidates which do not conform to the white-male image (namely Rocco Achampong, Monowar Hossain & Sonny Yeung). It seems disingenuous for the Thompson campaign to be decrying inequitable media recognition without also uplifting her colleagues.
@exlibris:
Let me know when there’s a mayoral race where there accidentally aren’t any men running.
@Justice Thanks for the spin. I’ll try to wrap my head around your doublethink.
And that’s how you respond to a comment claiming that 1985 has called.
Seems more like 1955 than 1985 judging by some of the comments made here. So what if certain very homogenous groups still rule the universe by complete and utter accident? Yawn.
Yawn right back at MK.
How ethnic does, for instance, Joe Pantalone (immigrant Italian) have to get before he doesn’t form part of your stereotyping? Or is it if you were born between the Med, the Arctic Circle and the Urals you’re just “some white guy”?
Guess it depends which statistics you’re trying to fudge, doesn’t it?
This post is not about forcing more people of different shades, anatomies and financial means to run for public office. Which the use of the word ‘quotas’ suggests.
The author is pondering how a city remarkable for it’s diversity runs municipal slates that look so white and male.
Diverting attention from this by harping about political correctness makes it sound like there are some people on the defensive here.
To be fair about the Womans Post candidate from what I gather Sarah Thomson doesn’t know really anything about the city. I talked to her and she didn’t know the boundaries, who the city builders have been or are, who Jane Jacobs was – really nothing. Never has had an interest in the City, but a keen interest in promotion and self-promotion. And shes very good at those. Very good. She is probably working hard to learn these things now. You should at least know where Scarborough is! Shes funny. Shes outgoing. But when the going gets tough, she may add a little bit embarrased to her wildly interesting biography. I think that is why she is nto getting any attention \ you cant just be smart, you also need to say something smart.
Dear JB,
I’ve never talked to you before, because if I had I would have told you that my grandfather designed Wychwood Park, my father was an architect and builder here in Toronto, I know many builders and architects in this city, I know a lot of history about this city and how it has grown. I know all the boundaries of Toronto and I have lived both on the street as a teen and in and about this great city of ours. In my spare time I renovate homes.
I met Jane Jacobs years ago, and have read both the Economies of Cities and Systems of Survival. I am funny and outgoing, but I also studied Philosophy and English. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.
I can only guess that you are working on someone’s campaign and trying to discredit me. Tsk Tsk.
I have lived in TO for the past three summers in a row, and being from Montreal, all I can say is don’t discount a white man in a suit, they occasionally deserve being mayor.
All we’ve ever had here are white guys in suits (though at one point they also had muttonchops). Time was they used to switch English-French each election to keep a good balance, but this was about as far as diversity ever went, and that was over 100 years ago. They abandoned that tradition and nowadays, the most liberal, progressive-leaning pseudo-sovereignist will laugh maniacally at the mere thought of an anglophone mayor of Montreal, let alone an immigrant.
Because, of course, English speaking people are deficient (let’s say, in nutrients) to properly administer the City of Montreal.
We had our first woman contestant last Fall, and she failed miserably. In fact we had two and they both lost bad. The two principle male candidates decided to cooperate.
Man, I hate it when two men put aside their differences and work together to stop a terrible potential female mayoral candidate.
Hopefully what I’ve managed to get across is this, in a not-too-subtle fashion.
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOUR OPTIONS ARE ALL MEN, OR ALL WOMEN, OR ALL ITALIAN.
Sometimes them’s just the breaks. I doubt there are any institutional policies at play to keep women or minorities down in your city, at least based on what I’ve seen, Toronto is diverse in every respect.
Being a white man, I am legitimately sorry for not choosing a different gender or race. Hell, at least I still have time to choose to be gay right?
Choose a mayor based on his/her merits, not race. Although we’ve only ever had white men in suits in this city, one of them gave us Expo, the Metro, the Olympics and put our city on the map in incalculable ways.
Do I wish Jean Drapeau was a lesbian-vegan-mulatto with a Zambian father and a Phillipino mother?
No, I’m ok with him being exactly how the universe created him – I judge him on his merits.
If American presidents were chosen the same way, we’d all be chanting Nader/Kucinich/Paul for Tripartite Executive Presidential Council!
Oh Ms. Thomson… Sensitive much? However, we have met and you absolutely didn’t know the boundaries. And you did not seem to know Jane Jacobs. You had no idea who she was. That was a year ago. You do now and that is good. A good mayor will always be learning. You are on the right track. Working for the comp? My hope for mayor does not want to run. Likes his radio show. Bad guess on your part. Tsk Tsk. Anyway, you want to be mayor, right? No guessing. It really is not accurate enough.
Oh… .and I would support Anonymous Q. Mootenstein. He (she! both?) nailed it.