One woman.

One Woman at the Table. But Is That Really the Bigger Problem?

By Maria Mavridis | Former Councillor, Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake

There will be just one woman sitting at the Niagara-on-the-Lake council table for the next four years.

One.

Out of seven elected representatives (six councillors and one mayor).

Recently, a reporter from The Lake Report reached out to ask me about the lack of female representation on the incoming council.

She wanted to know what challenges this might create, why I thought so few women were elected, and whether I had experienced anything during my time in office that might help explain it.

They are important questions.

But I think we need to ask a much bigger one.

How can we expect women to step forward and serve their communities when we continue to tolerate the public belittling, intimidation and dismissal of women who already do?

Because the issue isn’t simply how many women are sitting at the council table.

It’s how women are treated when they get there.

Two Women. Two Targets.

Something that deserves closer examination from this past municipal election is that the two incumbent councillors who appeared to face particularly focused efforts to remove them from office were both women.

Councillor Adriana Vizzari and I.

Two women with different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. Two women who served their community, made difficult decisions and weren’t afraid to express their opinions.

We didn’t always agree with everyone.

We weren’t supposed to.

That’s democracy.

But somewhere along the way, legitimate disagreement over municipal decisions seemed to become something far more personal.

I watched four years of service, hundreds of meetings, countless hours of advocacy and meaningful contributions to our community get reduced to individual votes and controversial issues.

When did one vote become more important than an entire record of public service?

When did disagreeing with a woman become justification for dismissing everything she has accomplished?

And why were the two women among the incumbents seemingly such prominent targets?

I’m not suggesting that women should be immune from criticism or electoral defeat. Quite the opposite.

Every elected official should be accountable for their decisions.

But there is a difference between accountability and personal attacks.

And we should be willing to recognize that difference.

When Speaking Up Becomes a “Pity Party”

Let me share an example.

During the election, an individual I understand to have been associated with Steve McGuiness’s campaign made a comment on Facebook suggesting that I was having “pity parties.”

On November 3, I saw a video posted by Steve thanking Brad for what he described as his “intel and espionage.” To me, that reinforced the connection between the individual and the campaign.

The original “pity parties” remark appeared to reference a situation in which I had stood up for myself after being told I should step aside because of my anxiety.

Let that sink in.

An elected woman speaks openly about a personal challenge, refuses to allow it to define her ability to serve, and stands up for herself.

And that becomes a “pity party.”

Then another man joined the conversation and wrote that I should “shut her trap.”

Three words.

“Shut her trap.”

Not a disagreement about municipal policy.

Not a thoughtful criticism of a council decision.

Not a debate about taxation, development, infrastructure or heritage preservation.

Just a man telling a woman to be quiet.

And this is where I believe our community needs to have a serious conversation.

Because when we normalize that language, when we scroll past it, laugh at it, excuse it or remain silent, we send a message.

We tell women that their voices are welcome only until they become inconvenient.

We tell women they can lead, but they had better not challenge anyone too loudly.

And we tell the next generation of young women watching that public service comes with a price that goes far beyond legitimate public scrutiny.

I Wasn’t Elected to Be Agreeable

When I was elected in 2022, I understood that not everyone would agree with me.

I knew there would be difficult decisions.

I knew there would be criticism.

And I knew that representing an entire municipality meant occasionally disappointing people who had supported me.

That is part of the responsibility.

Over four years, I advocated for heritage preservation, agricultural protection, youth and seniors, responsible growth, business fairness, infrastructure improvements and greater accountability.

I supported initiatives that weren’t always popular.

I opposed proposals that I believed weren’t in the best interests of the community.

And I never believed my job was to simply agree with the loudest voices in the room.

My responsibility was to make informed decisions for the entire community, not to secure the approval of a particular group.

That approach sometimes made me unpopular.

But I would rather be remembered as someone who stood by her convictions than someone who remained silent to protect her political future.

The Problem With Judging Four Years by One Vote

One of the most disappointing aspects of this election was watching an entire term of service become overshadowed by individual decisions.

Municipal councillors make hundreds of decisions during a four-year term.

Some are straightforward.

Others involve competing interests, legal obligations, financial consequences, confidential information and long-term implications that aren’t always visible to the public.

A councillor can support heritage preservation and still disagree with a particular heritage proposal.

A councillor can support local businesses while opposing a program that provides an advantage to only a select few.

A councillor can support responsible development while voting against an application that doesn’t meet their expectations.

Those positions are not contradictions.

They are examples of independent decision-making.

Yet political conversations increasingly seem to demand that elected representatives fit neatly into categories.

You’re either for something or against it.

You’re either with a particular group or you’re the enemy.

And if you disagree on one issue, your entire record can be dismissed.

That isn’t healthy for local democracy.

What Happens When There Is Only One Woman?

The incoming council will have one female representative.

Sandra O’Connor.

I sincerely hope her voice is heard, respected and valued.

But one woman cannot be expected to represent the experiences and perspectives of every woman in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Nor should she have to.

Women are not a single voting bloc. We have different political beliefs, professional backgrounds, family experiences and priorities.

That’s precisely why diversity matters.

A council table should benefit from a variety of perspectives: women and men, younger and older residents, business owners, agricultural voices, parents, retirees and people with different lived experiences.

Issues such as childcare, accessibility, recreation, community safety, housing, aging in place and economic opportunity can all benefit from those perspectives.

This doesn’t mean men cannot understand or advocate for these issues.

Of course they can.

It means that the more varied the experiences around a decision-making table, the greater the opportunity to identify concerns that might otherwise be overlooked.

True representation isn’t about seven people who think alike. It’s about seven people who are willing to think differently, challenge one another respectfully and make decisions for the whole community.

Why Would Women Want to Run?

We often talk about encouraging more women to enter politics.

We celebrate women in leadership.

We host conferences, recognize achievements and speak about breaking barriers.

But what happens when those same women enter public life and begin challenging established interests?

What happens when they say no?

What happens when they refuse to be intimidated?

What happens when they defend themselves?

Are they still celebrated?

Or do they suddenly become difficult, emotional, divisive or accused of seeking sympathy?

I cannot tell you why every voter made the choices they did in this election. Nor can I claim that gender was the deciding factor.

But I can speak to what I experienced and witnessed.

And I believe the way outspoken women are treated in public life deserves far more attention than it receives.

If we want more women to run, we need to consider the environment we are asking them to enter.

Would you encourage your daughter to seek public office if she knew that standing up for herself might result in public ridicule?

Would you tell your sister, your mother or your friend to serve her community if she would be expected to tolerate comments telling her to shut her trap?

And perhaps most importantly, would you speak up if you witnessed it happening?

Silence Is Part of the Problem

This is the part that troubles me most.

Not everyone making these comments holds public office.

Not everyone participating in online attacks is directly involved in a campaign.

But they are members of our community.

Our neighbours.

People we see at grocery stores, community events, restaurants and local fundraisers.

We live in a town that prides itself on its heritage, its sense of community and its values.

Surely those values should extend to how we treat one another.

Disagree with me.

Challenge my decisions.

Question my voting record.

Hold me accountable.

That is your right, and it is essential to democracy.

But don’t confuse personal humiliation with political accountability.

And don’t expect women to remain silent when they are treated disrespectfully.

The responsibility to challenge that behaviour doesn’t belong only to women.

It belongs to everyone.

Especially those who claim to value respectful leadership.

The Next Generation Is Watching

As a mother raising a daughter, I think about what young women learn from watching local politics.

I want my daughter to know that she can disagree.

That she can challenge authority.

That she can stand up for herself.

That she can acknowledge a personal struggle without having it weaponized against her.

And that she should never feel obligated to make herself smaller to make someone else more comfortable.

I named my daughter Hope.

And hope is exactly what I want the next generation of women to have.

Hope that their contributions will be measured by their work.

Hope that their opinions will be respected even when others disagree.

Hope that leadership won’t require them to sacrifice their dignity.

And hope that when someone tells them to be quiet, there will be others willing to stand beside them and say that behaviour is unacceptable.

One Woman Isn’t the Entire Story

So yes, I am disappointed that Niagara-on-the-Lake will have only one woman serving on its incoming council.

I believe our community benefits from different voices and perspectives.

But I am far more concerned about the culture that surrounds public service.

A culture in which political disagreements can become personal campaigns.

Where years of work can be reduced to a single vote.

Where women who defend themselves can be accused of seeking pity.

And where someone can publicly tell a woman to “shut her trap” without enough people questioning whether that is the kind of community we want to be.

We can count the number of women elected.

We can compare election results.

We can discuss representation, diversity and leadership.

But until we are prepared to challenge the behaviour that discourages women from speaking up in the first place, we are missing the bigger picture.

The real question isn’t simply why there is only one woman at the council table.

It’s what kind of community we have created when women who speak up are made to feel that they should have stayed silent.

And if we aren’t willing to confront that, the number of women at the table may be the least of our problems.

Maria Mavridis served on Niagara-on-the-Lake Town Council from 2022 to 2026.