Sharan Kaur served as the deputy chief of staff for former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau and is currently a principal at Navigator. Let’s set the record straight: Mark Carney is not Justin Trudeau; and that is a good thing. The continued fixation of former Trudeau-era loyalists in insisting that Carney is pandering to the ‘bros’ because of his “rejection” of the word ‘feminist’ in Canada’s foreign policy reeks of nostalgia for a government that often mistook optics for substance. It’s time for these fans of the Trudeau era to adjust their perspective, considering the new political landscape and world order. For far too long, we’ve confused catchy slogans with real progress. We slapped the label ‘feminism’ on various initiatives, celebrated our so-called successes, and then acted surprised when genuine change was left behind in favour of slick rhetoric. The recent uproar about Canada walking away from “feminist foreign policy” because Prime Minister Carney didn’t use the label at the G20 is a case in point — not a crisis of gender equity but a manufactured crisis of optics. The insistence that abandoning the term feminism means we’re sliding into ‘polite misogyny’ is nothing more than sensationalist hogwash. Canada’s credibility on the world stage has never been built on whether a prime minister utters a specific term. What truly matters are the tangible policies we enact to uplift the lives of women and girls here at home and in conflict zones and fragile states. Let’s confront the uncomfortable truth: the success of Canada’s foreign policy does not hinge on the presence of the word ‘feminist’ in a press release. We’re navigating a complex geopolitical landscape where the stakes are too high for 2015 era shallow branding. Our allies deserve a substantive commitment to results that go beyond empty labels. Carney isn’t rejecting equality Having served in the Trudeau government for five years, I often found the constant emphasis on our identity as a feminist government to be performative. In many cases, it felt like faux feminism. The women who were truly given a voice and elevated to positions of power were typically those who conformed to the feminist agenda set by the PMO. This doesn’t mean we didn’t do things to benefit women, but clinging stubbornly to the label ‘feminist’ only obfuscates the critical discussions we need to have. The notion that this label is untouchable is the problem. Mark Carney is not rejecting equality; he’s rejecting the idea that a single term should define our commitment to it. His focus is on results. Address gender-based violence. Support women. Invest in equality. But do so in ways that foster collaboration instead of creating divisions. This isn’t ‘bro behaviour’; it’s prudent governance. It’s fair to say that Carney embodies a no-nonsense approach to leadership. Coming from a corporate background, he brings a much-needed clarity to the often-dysfunctional environment of Ottawa. Does this mean he sometimes appears impatient and blunt? Certainly. Should he work on his tone and delivery? Probably. However, to claim he disrespects the views of women is entirely unfounded. Having spent time in his orbit during his tenure as central bank governor, I appreciated his straightforward nature and no-nonsense attitude. While I recognize that perception is important, we do a disservice to feminism by misrepresenting the situation. If perception is our biggest concern here, we’re not engaging with the real issues at hand. The outcry over Carney’s inner circle being predominantly male misses the mark entirely. Is feminism truly about appointing women solely for appearances? That kind of tokenism is counterproductive. Real progress requires us to prioritize effective governance and sound decision-making over hollow theatrics. Let’s call it what it is: the critics are not genuinely concerned with policy specifics; they are frustrated that Carney doesn’t adhere to the identity markers of a previous, more superficial era. Their grievances stem from a yearning for a carefully curated and familiar narrative rather than genuine analysis of the current landscape. Women aren’t ‘political toddlers’ The ridiculous suggestion that Carney is aligning himself with polite misogyny is not just unfounded; it’s absurd. His leadership is designed to navigate contemporary challenges, including mounting right-wing movements, political instability, and fragile alliances. The choice of language can dictate cooperation or conflict. True leadership requires prioritizing substantial progress over performative theatrics that yield little practical benefit. Let’s dig in a little deeper and reset the narrative. The idea that women will suddenly abandon support for the Liberals just because Carney refrains from using the term ‘feminist’ or doesn’t have enough women in his immediate circle is not only patronizing — it’s absolutely insulting. Women in Canada are not political toddlers; we are capable of grasping complex realities. What drives us are tangible outcomes, not superficial optics. Whether the PM labels his policies feminist or whether his chief of staff is a woman isn’t what matters — we want actual support for women’s health, reproductive rights, affordable childcare, and international funding that tackles gender-based violence and promotes girls’ education. If our aim is genuine equality, security, and prosperity for women around the globe, we must champion effective strategies over performative politics that seek social media validation. Carney’s focus should remain on delivering measurable results — not on appeasing critics with hashtags or optics designed to generate a warm and fuzzy feeling. The feminist agenda is far too important to be reduced to hollow theatrics. For those who prefer a world where clever language outweighs practical outcomes, they’re welcome to spout platitudes on the speaking circuit. The rest of us will continue advocating for policies that deliver real change — labels be damned. It’s time to grow up and prioritize substance over style in our pursuit of meaningful progress for women. More from Sharan Kaur:
