Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Gender Dynamics of Interest Group Politics: The Case of the Canadian Menstruators and the Campaign to Eliminate the “Tampon Tax”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Gender, Sexuality, and Canadian Politics

Abstract

In Canadian politics, interest groups are said to provide an important vehicle for organising and representing the collective interests of society before government. This chapter explores how gender shapes interest groups politics and the institutional arena(s) where it takes place and highlights how and why women’s and LGBTQ2 groups and their interests are often marginalised in policymaking. Still, these groups can sometimes be “winners” in interest group politics. This chapter explores how one group—the Canadian Menstruators—used outside lobbying strategies and strategic alliances to successfully lobby for the removal of the discriminatory “tampon tax”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. 1962. Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1970. Power and Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, Jan, Rainer Eising, and William Maloney. 2008. Researching Interest Group Politics in Europe and Elsewhere: Much We Study, Little We Know? West European Politics 31 (6): 1103–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracey, Glenn E. 2015. Toward a Critical Race Theory of State. Critical Sociology 41 (3): 553–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Robert D., and Jack Mintz. 2012. The Big Picture. In Tax Policy in Canada, ed. Heather Kerr, Ken McKenzie, and Jack Mintz, 1–34. Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada. 2015. House of Commons Debates, May 8. (Ms. Irene Mathyssen, NDP; Mrs. Patricia Davidson, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-210/hansard. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Carastathis, Anna. 2007. We Are Not a “Special Interest Group.” The Dominion 42. http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/930. Accessed 28 Jan 2019.

  • CBC. 2006. Tories to Cut Off Funding for Women’s Lobby Groups. October 4. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/tories-to-cut-off-funding-for-women-s-lobby-groups-1.594392. Accessed 9 Jan 2019.

  • ———. 2016. “Pink Tax” Sees Women Pay 43% More Than Men for Personal Care Products: Report. April 26. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pink-tax-1.3553524. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.

  • Connell, Raewyn W. 1990. The State, Gender and Sexual Politics. Theory and Society 19 (5): 507–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, Bridget J., and Carla Spivack. 2017. Tampon Taxes, Discrimination, and Human Rights. Wisconsin Law Review 491 (3): 491–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielian, Lucig, and Benjamin Page. 1994. The Heavenly Chorus of Interest Group Voices on TV News. American Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 1056–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruycker, Iskander. 2014. How Interest Groups Develop Their Lobbying Strategies: The Logic of Endogeneity. Paper Prepared for the ECPR’s General Conference 2014, Glasgow, Scotland. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/759c/b331d075c2d9cd8559f64ab9d64c04de2fe0.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • ———. 2016. Pressure and Expertise: Explaining the Information Supply of Interest Groups in EU Legislative Lobbying. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 54 (3): 599–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruycker, Iskander, and Jan Beyers. 2019. Lobbying Strategies and Success: Inside and Outside Lobbying in European Union Legislative Politics. European Political Science Review 11 (1): 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGagne, Alexa. 2019. True Match? The Federal New Democratic Party and LGBTQ Communities and Politics. In Queering Representation: LGBTQ People and Electoral Politics in Canada, ed. Manon Tremblay, 201–219. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, Courtney. 2016. How Canada Finally Axed Its Federal Tampon Tax. Ms Magazine, December 14. https://msmagazine.com/2016/04/14/how-canada-finally-axed-its-federal-tampon-tax/. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Eagles, Monroe. 2013. Organized Interests and MPs in Canada’s House of Commons: Constituency and Committee Factors in Lobbyist Targeting. Ottawa: Canadian Study of Parliament Group. http://cspg-gcep.ca/pdf/Munroe_Eagles-e.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Gais, Thomas L., and Jack L. Walker. 1991. Pathways to Influence in American Politics. In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements, ed. Jack L. Walker, 103–122. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatner, Joe A. 1980. In Pursuit of Public Opinion: Politics of Pressure Groups. Canadian Parliamentary Review 3 (3): 32–36: http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=373&param=94. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Goldstein, Jonah. 1979. Public Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Case of the Consumers’ Association of Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science 12 (1): 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gormley, William T. 1986. Regulatory Issue Networks in a Federal System. Polity 18 (4): 595–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, Joan. 2010. Politics and Promise: A Feminist-Institutionalist Analysis of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Concordia University, June 2. https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Grace.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Grant, Judith, and Peta Tancred. 1992. A Feminist Perspective on State Bureaucracy. In Gendering Organizational Analysis, ed. Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred, 112–128. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, Michelle. 2015. Toronto Woman Behind Campaign to Kill Tampon Tax “Ecstatic” Over Victory. The Star, June 4. https://www.thestar.com/life/food_wine/2015/06/04/toronto-woman-behind-campaign-to-kill-tampon-tax-ecstatic-over-victory.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Ingram, Helen K., and Anne L. Schneider. 2005. Social Constructions and Public Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Melanie, and Kathleen Rodgers. 2012. “The Government Is Operationalizing Neo-liberalism”: Women’s Organizations, Status of Women Canada and the Struggle for Progressive Social Change in Canada. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 20 (4): 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krook, Mona L., and Fiona Mackay. 2011. Introduction: Gender, Politics, and Institutions. In Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism, ed. Mona L. Krook and Fiona Mackay, 1–20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lecomte, Lucie. 2018. Party Discipline and Free Votes. Publication No 2018-26-E. June 28. Legal and Social Affairs Division. Parliamentary Information and Research Service. https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/InBriefs/PDF/2018-26-e.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Levitz, Stephanie. 2015. Government to Repeal “Tampon Tax” on July 1. iPolitics, May 28. https://ipolitics.ca/2015/05/28/government-to-repeal-tampon-tax-on-july-1/. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.

  • Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maclean’s. 2013. Which Groups Are Lobbying the Federal Government’s Powerful Departments the Most? We Take Stock. Maclean’s, December 13. https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-top-lobby-groups-in-ottawa/. Accessed 23 July 2019.

  • Mahon, Rianne. 1977. Canadian Public Policy: The Unequal Structure of Representation. In The Canadian State, ed. Leo Panitch, 165–198. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Emily. 2001. The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, Dorothy, and Amy Mazur. 2013. Women’s Policy Agencies and State Feminism. In The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics, Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and S. Laurel Weldon, eds., 664-678. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Women of Canada. n.d. National Council of Women of Canada Website. http://www.ncwcanada.com/. Accessed 26 July 2019.

  • Phillips, Anne. 1991. Engendering Democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presthus, Robert. 1973. Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics. Toronto: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pross, A. Paul. 1975. Pressure Groups: Adaptive Instruments of Political Communication. In Pressure Group Behaviour and Canadian Politics, ed. A. Paul Pross, 1–26. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Group Politics and Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayside, David, and Evert Lindquist. 1992. AIDS Activism and the State in Canada. Studies in Political Economy 39: 37–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, Paul. 1993. Policy Change over a Decade or More. In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, ed. Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith, 13–39. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawer, Marian, and Jill Vickers. 2001. Women’s Constitutional Activism in Australia and Canada. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 13 (1): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scala, Francesca, Éric Montpetit, and Isabelle Fortier. 2005. The NAC’s Organizational Practices and the Politics of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 581–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shade, Leslie R. 2011. Media Reform in the United States and Canada: Activism and Advocacy for Media Policies in the Public Interest. In The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy, ed. A. Sreberny, Robin Mansell, and Marc Raboy, 147–165. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Miriam. 1999. Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality Seeking, 1971–1995. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanbury, William T. 2003. Low-Down and Dirty on Big Political Donations. The Hill Times, January 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. 2015. Civic Engagement and Political Participation in Canada, Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General Social Survey. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/89-652-X. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Swinamer, Janet. 1985. The Value of Household Work in Canada, 1981. Canadian Statistical Review (March).

    Google Scholar 

  • Valji, Salim. 2015. Just Say No to Tampon Tax. Concordia University News, April 30. http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/offices/vpaer/aar/2015/04/30/just-say-no-to-tampon-tax.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  • Weiss-Wolf, Jennifer. 2017. Periods Gone Public: Taking a Stand for Menstrual Equity. New York: Arcade Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Lisa, and Joanna Everitt. 2004. Advocacy Groups. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

    Francesca Scala

Authors
  1. Francesca Scala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Scala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Manon Tremblay

  2. Department of History & Politics, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, NB, Canada

    Joanna Everitt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scala, F. (2020). The Gender Dynamics of Interest Group Politics: The Case of the Canadian Menstruators and the Campaign to Eliminate the “Tampon Tax”. In: Tremblay, M., Everitt, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Gender, Sexuality, and Canadian Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49240-3_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation