Allison Robins I'm confused why a "Lunch with the Guys" session is necessary.

Isn't practically every event or meeting one where the "guys" are prominently represented? I have no doubt that the perspective of all of these individuals would be really interesting to listen to, but am concerned by the fact that all of the speakers appear to be middle-aged white men. Are there no other perspectives that could be added to this conversation? Even if you continued to insist on the arbitrary gender divide, you could have at least insisted on a greater representation from other backgrounds.
Like Unfollow post 8 hours ago near Calgary

Sabrina Grover, Brittany Kustra Janz, Meg Martin and 14 others like this. 50 of 57 View previous comments View previous comments

Bill Cowen Really? 5 hours ago via mobile Like 1

Allison Robins Really. 5 hours ago Like 5

Kathleen George Smith Yeah. I'm kinda with Allison Robinshere. There are some fantastic women in this city who could've been added to the panel - Sue Heuman and Dana DiTomaso to name but two. I'm quite uncomfortable with the gender divide represented in the billing of th... See More 2 hours ago Unlike 5

Zazulak Marketing and Communications There is a women's panel luncheon that is hosted in conjunction with International Women's Day. 2 hours ago Like

Kathleen George Smith So then, I suppose the question is why are we dividing panels based on gender. The women host on Women's Day, the men host the rest of the year? Hey, perhaps the feminist in me is just irked. I don't know. But equality in business doesn't come from s... See More 2 hours ago Unlike 2

Kathleen George Smith BTW, it's interesting to note that the host of this event and at least TWO of the panel members have partners that are strong independent women who are successful in their own rights. Did the men involved in this event know that the event would be billed in this manner? Just curious. 2 hours ago Unlike 4

Allison Robins I think that a panel by women is being held on international women's day is irrelevant. That is simply pandering to women, instead of engaging them. The fact that you changed the event description obviously indicates that you realize that perhaps you didn't exercise the best judgment in its execution, so why not just own up? 2 hours ago via mobile Edited Like 5

Tamara Plant Kathleen. This event is a chance to have lunch with the guys. It's also an event that has been around for 10 years and one that Ryan was at last year with the exact same billing. We have addressed it, changed it to reflect the actual intention of the event, and hope that anyone with any gender issues can see past the penises on the panel and take away some valuable information from this luncheon. I do hope you join us.

3 hours ago Like 1

Allison Robins Wow, Tamara, you have truly missed the point of what has been said. You are being dismissive. It is not the fact that the panel members possess a certain set of genitalia, but rather the fact that it is composed of all middle age white males, with no representation from any other demographic. Also, you may want to check twitter to read what some of your participants have had to say about the comments that have been raised, before dismissing them. 3 hours ago via mobile Like

Tamara Plant Thanks for the feedback Alison. Have a great evening. 3 hours ago Like

Kathleen George Smith Tamara, like I said, I've a great deal of respect for nearly every man on this panel, and specifically for the host. However I remain opposed to the gender divide and the billing of this event. For those reasons, I agree with Allison. I think we feed into the gender divide when events are set up so that the panelists are "all male" or "all female". I don't agree with it when it's done in favour of female voices anymore than when it's done in favour of male voices. Again, not saying I'm "boycotting the event", just suggesting that perhaps the billing of the event and the exclusion of either male or female voices at either event is beneath the goals of true equality. And YES, I HATE being the contrarian yet again. I really do. But I honestly felt like I wouldn't be true to myself and my values if I didn't bring it up. 3 hours ago Unlike 3

Steve Ricketts are people aware that this event is being organized by CWC-AFC Edmonton (Canadian *WOMEN* in Communication)? you might want to ask them why they've chosen to take this approach 3 hours ago Like 1

Allison Robins I agree Steve. I think it is important to note that just because an event is organized by women, doesn't mean that it excuses the original billing. I also agree, we should ask them why the have chosen to take this approach, and I think that social media is an excellent public forum in which to do so. 3 hours ago via mobile Edited Like 6

Steve Ricketts a comment from a male perspective... from someone who's old enough to have grown up in an era where women did *not* enjoy the same opportunities as they do today (an era that could not help but affect my views), but also someone who's young enough and able to be open to adjusting his approach and embracing a different world... but of course someone who will always see the world through a different set of eyes, and not always able to see how issues are perceived by others, esp. women... it's good to see wrong things and thoughts challenged, for remaining barriers to be broken down, and to remember that for many women (esp. around the world), things are not yet equal. however, it irks me when i see an issue such as this, and to see people (mainly women) make such strong-worded statements, without knowing much about the event, and interpreting the event (and the intentions of the people behind it) in the worst way possible? can we not have some male-only events (or panels or awards)? IMO *true* equality will only exist when a male-only (or female-only) event draws no raised eyebrows. can we not show some patience and flexibility? 3 hours ago Like

Allison Robins Steve, what "irks me" is when individuals, particularly white, middle aged, cis-gendered males, post under the guise of a faux-feminism, stating that they believe in women's equality, etc. Let me break this down for you: Women DO NOT enjoy the same opportunities as men. And I will not be thankful for making 77.8 cents to the dollar that a man makes, if that's what you mean by enjoying the opportunities that I am able to today. Furthermore, no - I think that as a group that benefits from patriarchy and a male dominated society, men should not have male-only events or panels. The reason that it is acceptable to have awards that recognize individuals from the POC community, women, or being differently abled, is because they are able to succeed IN SPITE of patriarchy, not because of it. 3 hours ago Edited Like 4

Natasha Chiam Steve, I think the question is in a world where true equality exists, there would not be a need for male only or female only events. Utopian maybe, but I and many others will not be satisfied until that is where we are! 3 hours ago Like

Steve Ricketts Hi Natasha... I wasn't suggesting that we should *plan* to have male-only (or female-only) events, but if an event (or panel or whatever) happens to result in being comprised completely of men or women, that we would not find that weird, that we would not immediately sense some travesty or evil behind it. that's what i meant by true equality. we're not there yet, of course. make sense? 3 hours ago Like

Allison Robins Steve, none of us are saying that we believe this to be a travesty or evil, and portraying those of us who take issue with how the event has been executed as hysterical, or to hyperbolize our remarks, does you a diservice. I think that it is important that these dialogues happen, and that organizers of events are privy to them, so that they can be taken into account in future iterations. I am simply not happy with the status quo. War, genocide, those are things that can be construed as travesties and that are grounded in evil. This event is simply misguided. 2 hours ago Edited Like 1

Geneve Champoux I would like to know why there was no specific apology issued for the original statement, which was as follows: "Ever wondered what your male bosses, colleagues or prospective employers think is important for career advancement? Wished you could chat with one of the 'powerful people' who helps make this city tick? " A general statement clarifying that the event is open to everyone doesn't suffice. The organizers may not have been responsible for that particular statement (I don't know who was in charge of putting together the copy for this event), but that statement WAS offensive, and it should have been specifically addressed, not simply deleted. Personally, I'm not opposed to all-male or all-female panels, provided that there's a clear and justifiable reason for the divide. Doing it for the sake of "a man's perspective" or "a woman's perspective" is not enough, in my books. It should be done in cases of underrepresentation, such as a panel of male nurses or social workers discussing what it's like to be in a "caring profession" that's typically female-dominated. In this case, where you're dealing with a field that does not have a shortage of male representation and when you're putting together a panel of people who are traditionally more privileged, it's especially important to convey your reasons. The onus shouldn't be on the audience to simply "get it." There are instances where panels may by chance be all male or all white or whatnot, but when you go out of your way to select a panel of people who have

traditionally been in a place of privilege or power, you need to be very careful. In this case, an explanation such as, "The CWC's primary mandate is to help advance women in the field of communications, but while we work hard to promote the industry's top female leaders and inspire others to follow, we feel that it's also important to hear from some of our city's leading men in communications. Join us for a panel discussion led by . . ." would have gone a long way in contextualizing the event. There would still be some who wouldn't buy in, but it's important to remember that it's not the audience's fault that as promoted, the event looks like an effort in exclusion, not inclusion. 2 hours ago Unlike 10

Allison Robins Thanks for posting the original text Geneve. I think that it has also been immortalized on Twitter, for those who are interested and who are perhaps coming into this conversation a little bit later, and need the context. 2 hours ago Like 1

Steve Ricketts Allison... i didn't say that women today enjoy the same opportunities as men. as a society, we have a ways to go yet. i applaud efforts to break down barriers. it seems that you've formed a strong opinion of me based on only a few sentences. you look young and have already formed some hard opinions on this issue, including, it seems, a distrust of men and their motives; i find that sad. but i did learn a new word today... cisgendered! 2 hours ago Like 1

Natasha Chiam And unfortunately, a lot of the successful women in this community who may have gone to an event billed as Geneve has posted, are now dead set against going to this one. 2 hours ago Unlike 1

Allison Robins Glad that I could provide a learning experience Steve, it has made this conversation all the more valuable to me, personally. 2 hours ago Edited Like 1

Meg Martin Ageism! That's a word too. 2 hours ago Unlike 5

Steve Ricketts Allison... i hope your mind is open to trying to understand others' views and to learning too. i admit to being unknowing of and even insensitive to others' views at times, esp. of women (just ask my wife <grin>). do you? 2 hours ago Like 1

Allison Robins Yeah, I am open to learning about the views of others, but just because I learn about them does not mean I have to agree with them. Your hopes for me are inconsequential, and once again, come across as patronizing. I am constantly learning about the privilege that I exert within society, and how I need to be aware about how it plays out in my interactions with others, and how to check it. This, however, is getting off topic, and I don't want to have to explain or justify my personal ideologies. 2 hours ago Like 1

Danielle White I am curious about something. There are groups that assemble at the exclusion of others all the time. Seniors gather to discuss their issues exclusively at times. Religious groups assemble to discuss their issues exclusively at times. Parents assemble to discuss their issues exclusively at times. Political parties assemble exclusively at times. Do men not have the right to exclusively assemble? Isn't the right to assemble not enshrined in the Charter? The original wording is indeed a touch insensitive, but I don't get why men cannot assemble to express their views and insights at the exclusion of women.... #pointlossedonme #idontfeelthreatenedifmenthinkwithoutmyinput 2 hours ago via mobile Like 2

Steve Ricketts Allison... you come across as a passionate woman with strong opinions, but with a big chip on your shoulder. your comments are condescending and even a little insulting. frankly, i suspect you will face challenges in your professional life. but, as you say, you're not interested in my opinions on you, so dibs out. this conversation no longer interests me 2 hours ago Like

Meg Martin Danielle, your comment displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Charter. It's also important to note that this event is aimed at women, so it wouldn't be men exclusively gathering. Your point is a straw man, in my opinion, but I think we can certainly agree that there is value in discussions of gender in the workplace in a public forum. However, it's also important to acknowledge that gender equality is quite a charged topic and requires sensitivity. The original wording of the event misrepresented it, especially given that it was organized by women and the upset it has caused could easily have been identified in a risk assessment. 2 hours ago Unlike 2

Natasha Chiam Danielle, this event is being put on my CWC (Canadian Women in Communication) FOR women to come and spend "lunch with the guys" to ask them for their advice on how to succeed in a man's world (I am paraphrasing and drilling it down to it's most basic point, but that is what it is!). 2 hours ago Like

Brittany Kustra Janz Steve, Allison never insulted you. Rather, you made rather grand assumptions about her based on a couple of FB comments ("You look young and have already formed some hard opinions on this issue, including, it seems, a distrust of men and their motives"). When you make assumptions like that about a woman, you're dismissing any value in what she has to say. Are you sure she's the one with a chip on her shoulder here? 2 hours ago Unlike 10

Brittany Kustra Janz Here is the original wording of the event, for anyone who's curious:https://twitter.com/brittanyinyeg/status/263282069701013506/photo/1 2 hours ago Unlike 1

Meg Martin I'd also like to note that misogyny hurts men as well as women. The way this event was billed initially is misogynist, in my opinion, and surely not representative of the men on the panel who, ostensibly, are invested in the fight for gender parity and have an awareness of the dual oppression of misogynist structures n the workforce and society at large on men and women. 2 hours ago Unlike 6

Kathleen George Smith Yup. Not gonna engage in a Binders of Women event. And that's all I have to say about that. 2 hours ago Unlike 5

Danielle White Thank you Natasha for giving me the Coles notes version...so many points were being tossed about without context (which Brittany provided) that I simply was not getting it. And my argument was very nestled in the straws...and while I might have fundamental misunderstanding of that part of the Charter, my point was that there are many panel groups that assemble at the exclusion of others based of some criteria, but the event is open to all. If this had not been worded so douche-ily ...surprising words from a Marketing firm. 2 hours ago via mobile Like 2

Steve Ricketts Brittany... my original post was about the challenges that women face, the acknowledgement of wrongs, my frustration with strong responses that people (of both sexes) sometimes make, and of my hope for a better world. those comments were sincere. in her reply, Allison choose not just to challenge those views but also to question me and my sincerity (faux? cisgendered?). yes, i find that insulting, esp. given that she does not know me. my comment re her youth was based on her f/b image. i try to focus on the issue at hand, and not make personal comments or judgments, but sometimes my emotions get the better of me
:)

2 hours ago Like

Meg Martin Gotcha Danielle- it's a certainly a whole lot of text to read and track down. We're agreed .
:)

2 hours ago Like

Natasha Chiam Well, I think we can all admit that this is a very emotionally charged subject! 2 hours ago via mobile Like 2

Meg Martin Cisgendered isn't an insult- just a term to represent your gender identification 2 hours ago Unlike 4

:)

Leah Orr I think I just developed brain crushes on a bunch of women on this thread. Meg, Allison, Brittany, Geneve...you have said what I'd like to say in ways far better than I would have found. Thanks for that! Rock on, smart ladies. (FTR, my brain crush on Kathleen has been very public and mostly intact since she called me on some sh*t I said last year.) 2 hours ago Edited Unlike 6

Meg Martin Ditto the above. 2 hours ago Unlike 3

Allison Robins Steve, you are backtracking in all sorts of ways, so I'm not even sure that this post is needed, but being cisgender, as Meg has identified, is not an insult. Just as you have verified that I have appeared to be young, by looking at my FB profile picture, I have verified that you identify as "male", which corresponds with your gender performance. I have in no way insulted you, but rather you have gone to the lengths to infer that I do not trust men, that I have a chip on my shoulder, and that I will have troubles down my professional path. I know all of these things to be false. Thankfully, as has been evidenced by many wonderful individuals on this thread, there is a thriving community of individuals who believe that patriarchy and its assorted manifestations are bullshit. So, I think I have plenty of like minded professionals in the workforce, who I would be honoured to work with and be a colleague of. You take issue with strong responses and statements, well, I hate to break it to you, but that is what this world needs, or this status quo that hurts EVERYONE, including men, will remain. 11 hours ago Like

Steve Ricketts Meg... help me out. i find that people often use a word to imply more (or less) than its official definition. to wit, i see many people toss the word "misogyny" around. now, it means "the hatred or dislike of women or girls", and i'm pretty sure they're not meaning to imply that; i.e. it's more so a single suspect or stupid act that they're commenting on. so ditto re "cisgendered"... yeah, i read that it simply means that i identify with myself as a man, but does it have a more sinister implication; i.e. that i am completely incapable of understanding or identifying with a female perspective? i'm asking in all innocence here, and keep in mind that it was my choice to share an opinion on a topic that would generate a strong reaction; i threw myself into the lionesses' den, so to speak 11 hours ago Like

Meg Martin Hi Steve- I totally get what you are saying. Misogyny is definitely one of those words, and I might have been better to use patriarchy, although that has a pretty negative connotation as well, and I see both as forces that are negative for all genders. Cisgendered though, isn't as loaded. Less common, certainly, but just a term to identify whether or not you "live" the gender you were assigned or identified with at birth. 11 hours ago Unlike 3

Steve Ricketts thanks, Meg. i now feel so good, and.... "cisgendered"! and not as frustrated toward Allison. all is good with the world, esp. considering that we're not in NYC and dealing with all that crap 11 hours ago Like

Meg Martin Agreed! 11 hours ago Like

Steve Ricketts Allison... okay, you get an apology from me on the cisgendered comment, although i still take umbrage with your comment "post under the guise of a faux-feminism", and let's just say they we both let it escalate from there. 11 hours ago Like

Leah Orr (Or Haiti or other points South. I daresay they're having a harder time than most affected Americans so let's not forget them.) Aren't the Intertubes swell when they result in productive conversations? I think so. 11 hours ago Unlike 3

Allison Robins No, I won't say that, because I stand by my remarks. But thanks for your pseudo apology. 11 hours ago Edited Like 1

Steve Ricketts LOL. don't I at least get a pseudo apology in return? 11 hours ago Like

Allison Robins No, see, apologies only work if you mean them. It's not a tit for tat kinda game.

11 hours ago Like 1

Steve Ricketts you don't concede territory easily, do you? again you are attaching an spin to my comments (the genuineness of the apology). oh well, interpret it as you wish. i also stand by my remarks, although i wish i had kept them to myself 11 hours ago Like

Natasha Chiam Oh Steve--no you don't! 11 hours ago Like

Allison Robins Steve, you misunderstood, so let me be clear: If I were to apologize, it wouldn't be genuine - as I am not sorry for anything. Hope that clarifies things. 11 hours ago Like

Steve Ricketts Allison.. i totally understood your comment the first time 11 hours ago Like

Sarah Jackson I'd like to make a side note/observation: Words like "But" "although" "except" when used after a positive statement, they negate the good that was there, and even if you respect others opinions it comes across as disrespect and as though that the latter was a much more important opinion. I just noticed the word "but" a lot. 11 hours ago Unlike

Steve Ricketts Natasha... actually i do regret it. it helped to take the focus away from an important and interesting (albeit challenging) topic. i should have known better, and, no matter what other people do or don't say or write, i need to always remember that i only have control over what *I* do