I admit it—I can be a bit of a sceptic. Especially when I get a Hallmark-holiday-creation vibe. And I have to say, as a woman myself (hey, some of my best friends are women), I am starting to feel an increasing slip-slide down into this gully each year on March 8, or what was reported in The Guardian as “corporate Mother’s Day.”

 

However, despite businesses doing their own back-patting (wow, we have women staff!), odes to mothers, wives, sisters, colleagues and the many fabulous, brilliant, and strong women around the world (glad we inspire you, dude!, but where do you sit on the “my body, my choice” conversation?), and celebrating achievements by striking the IWD’s Insta-ready #InspireInclusion pose, despite all this, I will not ignore that International Women’s Day has some serious street cred.

 

A little history—and what does this have to do with Arts, Culture & Heritage?: International Women’s Day began in 1908 as a suffrage-socialist movement that called for activism and protests to take place to advance women’s equality, right to vote, and better working conditions. For women around the world to make demands.

 

By 1917, women textile workers in Russia were walking out for Bread and Peace— demanding an end to war, to food shortages, and to Tsarism, marking the beginning of the Russian Revolution. With Lenin enshrining Women’s Day as an official Soviet holiday in 1922, women were given flowers and a day off work (sounds nice, but where was the peace, or the food for that matter?), and recognition of International Women’s Day waned in the western world.

 

It wasn’t until 1975 that the United Nations brought it back, following the bold and assertive growth of second-wave feminism in the ‘60s, who used Women’s Day to demand equality of pay, economic opportunity, legal and reproductive rights, and the prevention of violence against women.

 

At the 1975 UN World Conference of the International Women's Year, three objectives were identified in a 10-year plan:

• Full gender equality and the elimination of gender discrimination;

• The integration and full participation of women in development;

• An increased contribution by women towards strengthening world peace.

 

These are big goals! (it’s not 1985, and we haven’t come a long way, baby, in advancing them).

 

Now, why I believe this work is critical to demanding important changes for non-profits and the arts, culture, heritage sectors:

 

In 2019, Statistics Canada reported that non-profit organizations employed 2.5 million people, representing 12.8% of all jobs in Canada. Women held 77% of these jobs. Oh and the good news (?!): the gender pay gap between men and women has declined in non-profits—it was down to only $6.14 in 2019 (I’ll just let that sit there).

 

Research shows entrenched inequality in the arts and culture sector at all levels. The Ontario Arts Council found there was underrepresentation of women in artistic leadership roles in sectors such as theatre, music, and media arts/screens and that women's artistic work received less public exposure when compared to men; a study examining institutional solo exhibitions at major art institutions in Canada found that while women made up 63% of artists, they made up only 36% of solo exhibitions (Read this fascinating 2022 article on the subject of diversity in arts leadership by Charlie Wall-Andrews, Rochelle Wijesingha, Wendy Cukier, Owais Lightwala).

 

So, there is work to do—which means opportunities. Because, let’s face it, a woman’s work is never done. There are so many exciting possibilities for positive change that are being explored in the non-profit and arts, culture & heritage sectors. 

 

The Canadian Museums Association’s Moved to Action is an inspiring report and a how-to guide for the sector’s advancement of truth, reconciliation, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I’m reading The Compassionate Imagination by Max Wyman that tackles building a new framework to support equitable practices, “a radical reimagining of the role of art and culture in contemporary democracy, [it] proposes a new Canadian Cultural Contract that re-humanizes our way of living together.” And there are countless think-tanks out there (The ONN; Creating the Future) diving headfirst into radical new approaches in non-profit governance models to address inequities; check out Vu Le’s article on this topic. And remember, because women make up 77% of the non-profit work force, we should demand action.

 

On International Women’s Day, let’s recognize strong, powerful women and also acknowledge that the UN’s 1975 goals have not obliterated the harm done to women around the world who continue to lose freedom and autonomy in life-threatening ways.

 

Finally, I would still like to thank the many women I know who faced down male-dominated systems and fought for women’s rights (my mom), became leaders and change-makers (my aunts), and worked as hard as any man to create opportunities for their families (my grandmothers).

This video is a good introduction to the pretzel-like contortions many non-profits go through all the time to try to fund their work in the community (thanks Kevin L. Brown for sharing). Accessible—and funny—storytelling like this might just help our sector kick-start conversations with the public, including donors, making it easier to clear the hurdles around overhead costs in the non-profit sector.

High expectations for non-profit organizations (read: real staff/real people) to cobble together diverse funding sources (“Honour some people” as they suggest in the video!) leads to burnt-out staff who feel they spend more time chasing down and reporting on funding than listening to the needs of the community they serve.

Some of the issues may stem from a lack of trust. But how did we get here? How has the media—and the government—portrayed charitable work (nice-to-have or must-have) and how are donors influenced by those portrayals?

From the Globe & Mail: “Canada’s nonprofit sector makes up 8.4 per cent of GDP—more than oil and gas—and provides 2.7 million jobs, yet it continues to suffer from a Cinderella syndrome, unrecognized for its important place in the country’s economy and lacking representation at the highest levels of government.”

 

As MoneySense asks in its article "The best charities in Canada to donate to for the most charitable impact", are ratings systems that value financial statements over social impact and values alignment the answer, or do they serve to entrench negative impressions?

​

How do headlines like these influence potential donors? "Is the money you donate to charity being used the way you think? How to make sure your donations count" (Toronto Star)