Vision Report en

Visions for
Gender Equality
Francesca Bettio and Silvia Sansonetti (editors)
Language editor: Jacki Davis
Justice and
Consumers
This report was financed by, and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for
Justice and Consumers, Unit D2 ‘Equality between men and women’, in the framework of a contract managed
by Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini (FGB) in partnership with Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS). It does not ne-
cessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission or of the Directorate-General for Justice,
nor may any person acting on their behalf be held responsible for the use which may be made of the informa-
tion contained in this publication.
FGB - Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini IRS - Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale
Via Solferino 32 Via XX Settembre 24

00185 Rome 20123 Milano
Italy Italy
Tel +39 064424 9625 Tel. +39 2467 641
Fax +39 0644249565 www.irs-online.it
www.fondazionebrodolini.it
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union, 2015
ISBN 978-92-79-47777-5
doi: 10.2838/00811
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Visions for
Gender Equality
Francesca Bettio and Silvia Sansonetti (editors)
Language editor: Jacki Davis

Table of Contents
Introduction
By Francesca Bettio and Silvia Sansonetti 7
Part I. New frontiers: what should the next ‘big thing’ in gender equality
policy be? 12
Equality, freedom and the sexual division of labour 12

By Nancy J. Hirschmann  12
Gender equality in times of inequality, crisis and austerity: towards
gender-sensitive macroeconomic policies. 16
By Diane Perrons  16
A renewed focus on gender 21
By Janne Fardal Kristoffersen  21
Men as a target for action in gender equality policies 24
By Jeff Hearn  24
Part II: What have we achieved so far and what challenges remain in key
areas?28
Challenging stereotypes and every-day sexism

By Brigitte Grésy  28
Equal pay for work of equal value
By Damian Grimshaw  32
Pensions and gender: a critical gap in our radar screens?
By Platon Tinios  36
Gender inequality in leisure time
By J. Ignacio Gimenez-Nadal  40
A holistic approach to the provision of care: a key ingredient for economic
independence
By Annelie Nordström  45
The challenge and opportunity of migration from a gender perspective
By Bridget Anderson  49
Unlocking the psychological keys to economic independence
By Marianne Bertrand  52
Gender equality in decision-making: going beyond quotas
By Lenita Freidenvall  55
Dignity, integrity and ending gender violence in the European Union
By Andrea Krizsan  59
Gendered violence: a cause and a consequence of inequality
By Nancy Lombard  63
Part III: Governance and communication for gender equality 67
Gender equality governance and tools: time to move up a gear

By Birgitta Aseskog  67
Gender equality governance and tools: the need for renewed focus and a clear
vision
By Johanna Kantola  72
The governance of gender equality: issues and tools for stakeholder mobilisation
and participation
By Ulrike Liebert  75
Gender equality and non-discrimination: how to tackle multiple discrimination
effectively?
By Hege Skjeie  79
Cross-cutting issues for the gender equality agenda 2015 and beyond
By Trudie Knijn  83
The role of the Internet and new media: amplifier of gender inequalities or vehicle
for change?
By Maria Edström  87
Bringing gender topics into the mainstream in schools
By Angelika Paseka  91
References96
Contributors107
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gender Gap in Pension vis-à-vis Gender Gap in Annual Earnings 37
Figure 2. Average hours per week devoted to paid and unpaid work, by gender and country 41
Figure 3. Average hours per week devoted to paid work, by gender and country 42
Figure 4. Little or no stress due to work-life balance issues 43
List of Tables
Table 1 Mean time in selected activities 40
Table 2 Time devoted to total work, Spain 2002-03 and 2009-10 42
List of Boxes
Box 1. Bringing gender to the negotiation of fiscal space 19
Box 2. Effects of cuts in public spending 33
Box 3. Gender pay gap and real wages in UK 34
Box 4. Average time spent by women and men active on the labour market on paid and unpaid work. 47
Box 5. Elderly care and middle-aged women’s opportunities for paid work 48
Box 6. The example of Scotland 66
Box 7. Integration of a gender perspective into integration policy (a Swedish case) 69
Box 8. Swedish government´s 2011 platform for gender mainstreaming: 5 strands 71
Box 9. The harm caused by stereotyping 80
Box 10. The importance of targeted rights information 82
Box 11. The Dutch example 86
Box 12. Nordic Initiative 1: Nordicom project Nordic Gender & Media Forum 90
Box 13. Nordic Initiative 2: Swedish Film Institute 90
Box 14. Nordic Initiative 3: KVINFO expert database 90
Box 15. Nordic Initiative 4: The Swedish Association of Communication Agencies KOMM 90
Box 16. The Austrian project GeKoS (Gender Competence Schools) 92
Box 17. Examples of the different concepts of learning 94
Box 18. An example from the GeKoS project 95
Country Abbreviations
AT Austria FR France NL Netherlands

BE Belgium GR Greece NO Norway
BG Bulgaria HU Hungary PL Poland
CY Cyprus IE Ireland PT Portugal
CZ Czech Republic IS Iceland RO Romania
DE Germany IT Italy SE Sweden
DK Denmark LT Lithuania SI Slovenia
EE Estonia LU Luxembourg SK Slovak Republic
ES Spain LV Latvia UK United Kingdom
FI Finland MT Malta
Introduction
Introduction
By Francesca Bettio and Silvia Sansonetti
As the European Commission’s current work programme for gender equality - out-
lined in its Strategy for equality between men and women 2010-201 - draws to
a close and the EU considers the way forward for gender equality policies, this
publication offers a range of perspectives on what has been achieved to date, the
challenges that lie ahead, and possible priorities for policy action to stimulate chan-
ge and accelerate progress in key areas. It is designed to feed into the development
of a new strategic and comprehensive vision to guide action at EU level post-2015,
as the new EU leadership which took office in 2014 looks to the future and seeks
to identify priorities for action at European level in the wake of the worst economic
crisis for generations.
The editors of this collection of essays asked the authors to reflect on what future
gender equality policies should look like, in the light of achievements and gaps in
past policies. The resulting essays by leading experts on gender equality, published
under the auspices of the European Network of Experts on Gender Equality (ENE-
GE), address key questions such as: how important will a continued focus on gender
equality be for Europe’s economy and society in future? How is the context in which
gender equality policies operate likely to evolve? What should the key overarching
priorities for the future be? What role should the EU play in this? And what implica-
tions does all of this have for the future gender equality policy agenda?
This publication is divided into three parts:
The first chapter, New Frontiers, outlines visions for the future of gender equality
policies, considering where the focus should be in the next generation of policies
and how to accelerate progress to achieve genuine gender equality for all.
The second chapter, Achievements and Challenges, assesses the remaining challen-
ges in the priority areas identified in the European Commission’s strategy for 2010-
2015 and the gaps that need to be addressed.
The third chapter, Governance and Communication , considers how best EU can
meet the challenges identified in the previous sections and highlights the key cross-
cutting issues that need to be addressed in relation to governance and tools, com-
munication, stakeholder mobilisation, etc.
A recurring theme of these essays is the need to maintain awareness of gender
equality as a political and policy issue, and ensure that it remains a priority for ac-
tion in the coming months and years. Otherwise, there is a serious risk of ‘gender
equality fatigue’, with many people assuming that the most important battles have
already been won and that gender equality is now a reality, so there is no need to
do much more.
There are worrying signs that this is already happening, with evidence that gender
equality policy is being downgraded by the governments of many EU Member Sta-
tes through, for example, cuts in public spending on gender-relevant actions as part
of general austerity drives; a growing trend towards replacing independent bodies
for protection against discrimination on grounds of sex with bodies for protection
against discrimination on various grounds, thus diluting the focus on gender equali-
7
Introduction
ty; and, more generally, a growing imbalance in favour of narrowly defined econo-
mic concerns over social concerns.
However, as these essays reveal, it would be a profound mistake to assume that
the battle for gender equality has been won: progress has been spectacular in a
few areas, such as levels of education, but painfully slow in others, including sexual
balance in the various fields of education.
So what is to be done to accelerate progress and deliver true equality for all? Ge-
nerally speaking, the authors of these essays do not argue so much for a change in
priorities as for a sharper focus on specific issues and new tools to address them.
They maintain that policy-makers need to find new ways to tackle issues that have
long been a focus of gender equality policies at national and European level - such
as work-life balance, combating gender stereotypes, more equality in earnings and
fighting violence – as well as addressing others which may have been somewhat
neglected or overlooked up until now.
Work-life balance
Experts from outside the EU argue that generous work-life balance policies in Eu-
rope (part-time work, long parental leave, etc.) may have had both positive and
negative effects, boosting female employment in Europe but lowering the share
of high-quality jobs for women (Bertrand), and hindering the redistribution of hou-
sehold duties to men (Hirschmann), with women still shouldering a disproportionate
share of housework, working about eight hours a week more than men on paid and
paid work combined (Nadal). Looking at Europe from a US perspective, Bertrand and
Hirschmann therefore argue for a radical change of focus in work-life balance poli-
cies, targeting men as well as women and challenging the sexual division of labour
within households.
European experts contributing to this volume take a different view: they agree that
men should be targeted, but are more concerned about protecting the welfare in-
frastructure and benefits from erosion by austerity policies (Knijn, among others).
They also propose a different vision of work-life balance policies, with the focus on
investment in the social care sector (from health to personal care) and the provi-
sion of education (from kindergarten to university) as ‘productive’ investments that
create jobs, improve skills and increase the efficiency of social spending (Perrons).
A clear implication of all this is that the scope of work-life balance policies should
be enlarged rather than simply redesigned to accommodate men by, for example,
focusing more on care of the elderly given its growing importance as Europe’s po-
pulation ages (Nordstrom).
Female migration
The growing importance of employment in the care sector for growth and jobs
raises broader issues about the role and treatment of women migrants. Anderson
warns that although growing attention is being paid to women migrants in acade-
mic and policy circles, this has not been matched by full understanding and reco-
gnition of gender issues. At national or community level, some attempts have been
made since the 1990s to acknowledge specific hazards faced by female refugees
(such as violence) or specific grounds for claiming asylum (such as Female Genital
Mutilation). However, “…where progress had been made, it has tended to be in areas
associated with the vulnerability of migrant women”, such as violence in prostitu-
tion or economic exploitation in (non-professional) care work.
8
Introduction
The EU needs to consider the implications of such biases and review its policies
in light of this. Take the specific needs of those who do not fit the ‘victim’ stereot-
ype - skilled female migrants in particular. These needs are often ignored as if, for
example, the requirement to earn 1.5 times the average gross national salary to be
eligible for an EU Blue Card1 gives equal chances to male and female candidates, when this is
not the case because of gender pay gaps.
Stereotypes
Targeting men as well as women is also seen by the authors of these essays as
central to any attempt to combat stereotypes. This is seen as a goal in itself (Gresy),
and as a cross-cutting issue. For example, differences in the labour market beha-
viour of men and women are often rooted in social norms which feed on stereotypes
(Bertrand); stereotypes hamper the struggle for equal pay (Grimshaw); and stere-
otypes can be used to justify and tolerate violence against men (Hearn) as well as
against women (Lombard).
One common plea is for new policy tools to be considered in this area. How effective
have attempts to fight stereotypes in schools been over the past 20 years? Can we
simply count how often boys visit old people’s homes or girls attend technical wor-
kshops to assess progress? Paseka argues for a ‘gender professionalism’ strategy
for schools to overhaul existing policies. Edstrom makes a similar plea for pursuing
gender equality in and through the media, starting with the development of appro-
priate indicators at EU level.
Pay and income inequality
The drive for equal pay and earnings has been at the core of European social policy
from the very beginning – and should remain there, according to the experts who
contributed to this publication, given that the gender pay gap has changed little over
the past 20 years. Grimshaw argues that the roots of this persistent imbalance lie in
the lower visibility and undervaluation of women’s work, stereotypical views about
careers, the low value added of some jobs typically held by women, etc.
Another equally important reason for maintaining the focus on this issue is that
the earnings gap has a sequel – the pensions gap – with studies showing that the
average gap in pension income between men and women is around 40% for the
EU-28 (Tinios). This is close to the 37% ‘Total gap in earnings’ that obtains for the
EU-27 when the earnings of all women of working age are compared to those of
men, including women and men working shorter hours or not working at all2. The
similarity between these two figures is striking.
Violence
The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency surprised many Europeans in 2014 when it
published the results of its survey on the prevalence and distribution of violence
against women. Long regarded by many as a private affair, violence against women
has finally become a public issue (Lombard). Yet there is no European hard law co-
1 An EU-wide work permit for highly-skilled migrants

2 See Eurostat, Gender Statistics in Statistics explained available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_statistics.
9
Introduction
vering forms of violence against women beyond sexual harassment and trafficking,
nor an EU directive covering protection, prevention, prosecution and partnership
(Krizsan). In the past, it was argued that the EU had no legal basis for acting in this
area, but this view is increasingly being questioned and the essays in this collection
discuss possible tools and options, from adoption of the Instanbul Convention to
taking inspiration from national legislation and practices.
A multi-faceted ‘intersectional’ approach to gender equality
Long-standing calls to challenge traditional gender divides highlight the need to

acknowledge that gender divisions ‘intersect’ with other divisions based on gender,
class, race, religion and other sources of inequality, laying the ground for multiple
forms of discrimination. Women are never ‘just’ women, and men are never ‘just’
men (Freidenvall). Far from being an academic concern, the need to take greater ac-
count of this has wide-ranging implications for different policy areas. It is at the core
of proposals for a novel approach to discrimination policy (Skjeie), and is also rele-
vant to policy areas of growing importance such as migrant integration ( Aseskog)
and equality in decision-making (Freidenvall). In implementing quotas, for example,
an intersectional approach highlights differences among women which could lead to
the marginalisation of specific groups if ignored.
Equality in decision-making
Thanks to successful implementation of the quotas initiative, equality in decision-

making has swiftly gained prominence among the EU’s equality policies, demon-
strated by the attention devoted to this issue from different perspectives by several
authors in this collection. But despite evidence to suggest that quotas for women
have resulted in more qualified company boards there are warnings that this is not
a ’magic bullet’ solution. There is no evidence yet that the benefits of more women
at the top are percolating down to lower levels (Bertrand), and there are concerns
that a focus on elites might detract attention from the needs of ‘ordinary’ women’
(Knijn). This begs the question of whether gender quotas alone are enough to
counter such risks.
Governance and communication
More than one contributor to this volume voices concerns that the gender equality
agenda has lost ground in the EU since the turn of the century, with the crisis and
austerity accelerating this trend (Perrons, Aseskog, Kantola). One specific argument
advanced to support this is the decision to move the European Commission’s Gender
Equality Unit from the Directorate-General for Employment to DG Justice which, it is
claimed, underlies a policy shift from a positive action and a social policy approach
to a narrower anti-discrimination approach ( with the notable exception of quotas).
A number of changes to EU governance are proposed to combat this trend, from a
shift of focus back to social policy to the launch of a new gender equality platform
tasked with pursuing, among other goals, systematic implementation of gender
impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation at national level – in short, a more
effective mechanism for gender mainstreaming.
Governance works well if it is supported from below. Are we sure that adequate
efforts are being made to enable European citizens to understand what is really
10
Introduction
meant by ‘gender equality’ and to support it? Kristoffersen, a right-wing mayor from
Norway, confesses that she was not interested in ‘gender equality’ until she entered
politics, but woke up to the issue when faced with the challenge of raising stan-
dards of living in her municipality. Based on her experience, she launches the idea
of developing practical, effective equality plans in each municipality to bring gender
equality issues to ordinary men and women, and particularly to young people, who
all too often take equality for granted. Right-wing parties, she pleas, should embra-
ce gender equality and not leave such issues to the left, saying: “Gender equality is
very simple: it is about taking away unfair obstacles so that everyone has the same
opportunities. Who can be against that?”
All the issues analysed in this publication underline the importance of effective
communications on gender equality issues, not only targeted at politicians and po-
licy-makers to ensure that this issue remains high on the agenda, and not just to
‘preach to the converted’ but to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’ to rally more people
to the cause and generate greater momentum for gender equality initiatives. It is
also important to use the right language when talking about gender and gender
equality, and to be aware of the different meanings of some common terms, such
an ‘economic independence’, when they are applied to men or women (Nordstrom).
Do we therefore need new terms to convey precisely what we are talking about?
One point of tension in the debate over gender equality is how to strike the right
balance between addressing this issue in a holistic way, given the many factors that
have an impact on gender equality such as age, ethnicity, class and the linkages
between different forms of discrimination, and ensuring that this does not result
in a weakening of the focus on gender equality, which risks downgrading and mar-
ginalising it as a political goal. It is crucial for Europe to get this balance right in
order to be able to develop effective policies to tackle the fundamental causes and
consequences of gender inequality in all its many facets, which can lead to multiple
discrimination, as highlighted in these essays.
Given estimates that it will take between 20 and 70 years to reach the goal of ge-
nuine gender equality at the current rate of change, it is obvious that more needs
to be done to build on the achievements of the past and accelerate progress in
future if the EU is to abide by its commitment to the fundamental principle of equal
treatment of men and women. To this end, both the EU as a whole and its member
states individually will need clear new strategies, targets and top-level commitment
to achieve this. This publication aims to provide some pointers as to what the core
elements of those strategies could be and thus to provide inspiration for policy-
makers as they begin work on the development of a new vision to guide action at
EU level post-2015.
11
PART 1: New frontiers: what should the next ‘big thing’ in gender equality policy be?
Part I. New frontiers: what

should the next ‘big thing’ in
gender equality policy be?
Equality, freedom and the sexual division of labour

By Nancy J. Hirschmann
Feminists have long argued for equality between the sexes, but women around the
globe still appear to be moving toward this goal too slowly, facing continuing dome-
stic and sexual violence, barriers to education and paid work, and multiple forms of
discrimination in the workplace.
Economic factors such as labour force participation and pay equity are particularly
discouraging: according to the World Economic Forum’s 2014 Global Gender Gap
Report, “the gender gap for economic participation and opportunity now stands at
60% worldwide, having closed by 4% from 56% in 2006.”
The diversity of inequalities experienced by women in different countries and cultu-
res has often led to arguments for equality among women, eliminating discrimina-
tion by categories of race, class, ethnicity and sexuality. But the struggle for sexual
equality emerged out of a more fundamental struggle - the struggle for freedom.
It was feminists of the European Enlightenment era such as Mary Astell (who asked,
referring to the theorist John Locke, “if all Men are born free, how is it that all Wo-
men are born slaves”?) who made this link between freedom and equality so clear
and strong (see Springborg, 1996: 18; 1997). In the following century, Mary Woll-
stonecraft argued for the abolition of laws restricting women’s control over property
as well as increased access for girls to education (see Brody, 1992) and Olympe
de Gouges (2003) attacked the male subjugation of women, arguing for rights of
divorce, property and the freedom of women to engage in public life and speech. In
the 19th century, Harriet Taylor went further, calling for far-reaching liberalisation
of divorce laws and even the abolition of marriage to enhance women’s freedom
from control by men (see Rossi, 1970).
These early European feminists set the tone for my argument in this essay: that we
need to shift the focus back to freedom if we want to succeed in the struggle for
equality; and the keys to this are new ways of tackling the unequal sexual division
of labour (SDL).
Freedom is a concept that covers a variety of gendered experiences, and a value
that has different meanings and significance for different women in different cultu-
res. However, this focus on the SDL might seem surprising: am I really saying that
‘the next big thing’ for the EU to address is simply ‘the same old thing’ dating back
12
to the beginning of the ‘second wave’ of feminism in the US and Europe?

Early Marxist feminists such as Mariarosa Della Costa and Ann Ferguson took the
SDL as the foundation of women’s oppression, calling for “wages for housework,”
prompting predictions of waves of divorce as women left the family in search of ca-
reers and ‘finding themselves’. Such fears seem dated and naïve today, particularly
in the EU, since various European countries have done far better than ‘liberal de-
mocratic’ regimes such as the US, Australia and Canada in providing generous paid
maternity leave, nationally-funded childcare, healthcare for pregnant women and
children, and job support for working mothers (Meyers and Gornick, 2001). All these
advances provide substantial reasons for American feminists to feel admiration for,
and envy of, their European sisters.
But these policies do nothing to change the SDL; at best they accommodate it.
Certainly, they may have been driven by a fatalistic acceptance of the fact that the
vast majority of primary childcare providers are women. In some cases (such as in
Germany), countries actively encouraged women to be full-time mothers (Musha-
ben, 2001). Others (such as France) paid women ‘baby bonuses’ for third children,
including payments to parents who stopped work to care for this child and bonuses
for poorer mothers for each new child as well as monthly payments and help with
childcare. Tax deductions, tax cuts and pension arrangements were similarly used to
encourage larger families (Ballantyne, 2005).
Other nations may have been driven by more egalitarian ideals, assuming that
providing generous benefits to primary caretakers might incentivise men to take
on a greater share of such work, but the effect has been to leave the SDL largely
unchanged. This bias is reflected in many EU policies.
Under Directive 2010/18/EU, “all EU member states must provide at least four
months’ parental leave per parent,” but the terms of such leave vary from country
to country (Moss, 2014: 17)3 . These differences more often reinforce rather than
challenge the standard SDL, with fewer days allotted to fathers in most countries4
and significant variations in the amount of compensation provided. This means that,
for instance, even in countries where families are entitled to longer periods of pa-
rental leave, low compensation rates (e.g. 30% of salary in Italy) may reduce genui-
ne access to such leave (World Economic Forum, 2014: 331; Moss, 2014: 180)5. The
fact that men are encouraged to take leave through financial incentives does not
mean they will necessarily do so; even in Sweden, where parents receive generous
combined leave of 480 days, men systematically take less: only about 25% of the
3 States also provide “maternity” and “paternity” leaves upon the birth of a child, and these offer
women much more time than men. This is presumably because of the physical toll that pregnancy and
parturition take on women’s bodies. But such policies are closely tied to social biases about women’s
role as mothers; otherwise, the length of maternity leave would not vary so widely from country to
country, since average time of recovery is based on biology, not nationality. Furthermore, these same
gender differences in maternal and paternal leave persist in cases of adoption, where there is no need
for medical recovery. (Moss, 2014: 181).
4 For a cross country comparison see (Moss, 2014: 31-33).
5 Note that this is for parental leave, not paternity leave, which is minimal except in unusual cir-
cumstances such as the mother’s death, in which case the father may take up to three months at 80
percent of pay (Moss, 2014: 179).
13
total (although 90% of fathers do take leave, a dramatic increase over the past two
decades)6.
Such policy inequalities almost certainly perpetuate other inequalities in relation to
household labour. A recent European Commission report stated that “women spend
an average of 26 hours on care and household activities, compared with 9 hours
for men”, a reduction of three hours in the gap found earlier in the 21st century,
suggesting modest progress (European Commission, 2014a). This is comparable to
the US where (according to research funded by the National Science Foundation, the
National Time Use survey and other government data) women work 17-28 hours
per week in unpaid household labour versus 7-10 hours per week for men. In fact,
the NSF study found that marriage creates seven additional hours of housework per
week for women, while men spend less time on household labour after they marry
(Mixon, 2008; Pew Research Center: 2013 Ch. 5; Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2014).
Furthermore, men’s participation in household work often does not involve much
childcare: even unemployed fathers only spend 11 more minutes on caring (from
40 to 51 minutes per day), while mothers who do not work double their caring time
(from 74 to 144 minutes per day) (Veerle, 2011).
In both Europe and the US, these gender gaps in household work are significant
and certainly large enough to drive women into part-time labour, more frequent
and longer interruptions in labour force participation, and lower-status jobs offering
more flexible work hours, all of which have a serious negative impact on their life-
time earnings, job security and pensions in retirement. They also increase women’s
vulnerability to poverty in case of divorce, and this in turn creates an increased risk
of losing custody of their children, particularly if their ex-husbands remarry. This
may be less pronounced in the EU than the US and women do retain custody in most
divorced families - but often because men often do not seek it; when they do, they
often win, at least in the US (Gender Bias Study Committee of the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court, 1990: 745).
Returning to my opening theme of freedom, however, could it be that the differen-
ces in the allocation of household and childcare duties reflect the choices mothers
and fathers make? For example, many women still choose to be full-time wives and
mothers, so why wouldn’t they want to take more leave than men? What makes
this seem plausible is the even greater injustices that persist in the workplace for
women: inferior pay, inferior opportunities, sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.
Thus it may seem a ‘good choice’ to take more leave or be ‘just’ a wife and mother,
given the alternatives.
But injustice in one arena hardly ameliorates it in another. Indeed, many feminists
have noted that women’s unpaid work in the home directly affects their economic
prospects, not just by hampering their ability to compete for the better-paid jobs
(e.g. the need to accept part-time work, pressure to seek lower-status jobs to avoid
long hours), but also by directly affecting the economic value attached to the kinds
of work women do because they do it (with nurses paid less than doctors, childcare
providers less than firemen). (Abby, 2011: 65; Okin, 1989: 142-48).
Injustice in the family bleeds into every aspect of society, and particularly the labour
market: gender injustice is a complex and intricate network of inequalities in which
addressing one inequality does little or nothing to address the others, and indeed
6 See: Reeves (2011), and The Economist 22 July 2014. See also “Quick Facts: Childcare, Equality” at
https://sweden.se/quick-facts/parental-leave/. The data on parental leave in Sweden was not provided
in the Gender Gap Report (World Economic Forum, 2014: 339), though Sweden was ranked fourth.
14
sometimes makes them worse (for example, when women promoted to managerial
positions have less leisure time than their male colleagues because they are still
doing most of the housework). (Hochschild, 2001)
As American political theorist Susan Moller Okin said: “Any just and fair solution to
the urgent problem of women’s and children’s vulnerability must encourage and
facilitate the equal sharing by men and women of paid and unpaid work, of produc-
tive and reproductive labour.”(Okin, 1989: 5, 116, 149-154, 171, 176, 179) Such
injustice impacts on women’s freedom by restricting their options, socially coercing
them into specific duties, roles and ‘choices’. But how to bring about the necessary
redistribution of household labour eluded her.
That problem challenges any feminist concerned with freedom. Government incen-
tives to encourage men to do more housework hold some promise, although they
are of limited success. Sweden’s allocation of leave specifically for fathers, and
incentives to take it, has certainly led more men to do so and this model, which has
been adopted by some other EU countries, should be developed more aggressively.
But parental leave may not in itself lead to greater equity in the overall SDL, for
while Swedish men do more housework, the impact is underwhelming: official stati-
stics show that the time spent by women on domestic work fell from 32 hours per
week in 1974 to 19 in 1991, while among men, it increased from two to five hours;
and over the next decade, the time spent by men “hardly changed at all”, while
among women, it fell by another four and a half hours per week (Chronholm, 2007).
So the gap is declining, but not because men are doing more. Perhaps women are
‘letting things go’, being more efficient, relying on outside help (housecleaning, re-
staurants), or perhaps improved technology is having an effect. But the bottom line
is that inequality persists.
American philosopher Ann Cudd has a more radical suggestion: that women should
go on a housework strike, (Cudd, 1998) insisting on a 50/50 split in household and
childcare responsibilities. This idea, going back to early Marxist feminism, may ap-
pear naïve and simplistic. It is hard to see people you love as the target for a battle,
especially since women are socialised to be pliant and get along with others, not to
mention the risk of domestic violence. Moreover, it may presuppose a middle-class
heterosexual household.
That is why state support and incentives to draw men into greater participation in
household labour and childcare are so vital to back up women’s efforts. For what is
promising about Cudd’s idea is that it can give individual women the support and
strength to stand up to their partners - because as a strike, it is a collective action.
This is not enough by itself, but it may be what Elizabeth K. Markovits and Susan
Bickford call a “non-coercive nudge…to intervene in the feedback loop connecting
the gender division of labour with women’s inequality” (Markovits and Bickford,
2014: 83). When combined with the kinds of incentives Sweden is using, the “nud-
ge” of women’s demands in the family could be more effective.
This means that the EU needs to develop ways to encourage member states to
adopt strong gender equality values and put in place policies founded on the basic
truth that until men do an equal share of childrearing and housework, gender equa-
lity - and genuine freedom for women - will never be achieved.
15
Gender equality in times of inequality, crisis and austerity: towards

gender-sensitive macroeconomic policies.
By Diane Perrons
“Equal pay for equal work is a founding principle of the European Union, but sadly is
still not yet a reality for women in Europe.” Former EU Justice Commissioner Vivia-
ne Reding made this remark on European Equal Pay Day - February 28 2014 - 59
days after the start of the year.
She chose this date to mark the end of a period in which, given the gender pay gap
(16.4% - EC, 2014a), women effectively work without pay. This gap is one indicator
of an unequal world in which, for instance, a CEO of one of the FTSE 100 firms in
the UK would only have to work one and a half days to earn the annual salary of an
average social care worker (High Pay Centre, 2014). These gaps reflect both rising
inequality and the persistence of gender inequality - conditions that result from the
pursuit of neoliberal economic policies and associated priority given to the economy
over society.
The scale of contemporary income and earnings inequality has generated widespre-
ad public concern, demonstrated by activist movements such as Occupy, and is now
evident among more orthodox world leaders, some of whom have called for a more
inclusive form of capitalism to ensure political and social stability and economic
growth.
In 2014, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund,
pointed out that inequality is returning to levels not seen since the onset of the
1929 recession; Pope Francis tweeted that inequality was “the root of social evil”;
and European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker said that “it is not com-
patible with the social market economy that during a crisis, ship-owners and spe-
culators become even richer, while pensioners can no longer support themselves”
(EC, 2014b).
By contrast, gender inequality has not aroused the same degree of public interest,
even though women continue to be disadvantaged in the labour market, underre-
presented in decision-making and are more likely than men to experience domestic
violence (EC, 2014c). Indeed, women are, as Lagarde put it, “underutilised, under-
paid, under-appreciated and over-exploited”. What makes this situation in Europe
surprising is that there have been five decades of equality policies.
So why have gender equality policies not been more effective and what scope is
there for such policies in times of austerity? This essay addresses these questions
and argues that only by ensuring that the economy serves societies rather than vice
versa will it be possible to realise the EU’s objectives for sustainable and inclusive
development and make it more likely that gender inequality will be resolved.
Gender equality in times of inequality, crisis and austerity
Contemporary Europe is emerging slowly and unevenly from the deepest recession
ever recorded. Following a coordinated and expansionary response to the crisis in
2008, member states experienced a sovereign debt crisis and subsequently, from
2010 - simultaneously yet without collective co-ordination - embarked on austerity
policies to reduce the size of the public sector deficit and debt (Bettio et al 2012).
16
To meet the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact’s conditions (SPG), the public sector defi-
cit can be no more than 3% and public debt no greater than 60% of GDP. By 2013,
ten member states were still above the deficit guidelines and 16 above those for
debt. Potentially of greater potential concern is that public debt is rising in all but
two of the countries where it exceeds 60% of GDP (Germany and Hungary), as it is
for the EU as a whole (Eurostat, 2014).
Thus, while the deficit is falling, public debt continues to rise and for this reason
austerity policies continue to dominate the policy agenda even though feminist and
heterodox economists (Fukuda Parr et al., 2013; Stiglitz, 2012) have demonstrated
they are counterproductive for the economy. Such policies also make it very difficult
to secure social objectives for inclusion and gender equality.
What implications does this have for the future gender equality agenda?
Since the original Treaty of Rome, the EU’s commitment to gender equality has
waxed and waned over the years, being stronger in periods of economic growth and
labour shortage and withering away in periods of low growth, crisis and austerity
(Smith and Villa, 2013).
Perhaps the high point for gender equality policies was the decision in 2000 to
enshrine gender mainstreaming in the Lisbon Treaty, which requires that policies
and measures should “actively and openly take into account at the planning stage
their possible effects on the respective situations of men and women” (EC, 1996).
Subsequently, allegiance towards gender equality has weakened in both EU policies
and practice, as analysis of recent EU policy documents shows. Attention to gender
issues has become less effective than in previous decades, indicating that social
policies remain subordinate to economic ones especially the SGP.
This differential treatment rests on the neoliberal assumption that the economy and
economic policies are wealth-creating or productive while social policies are costly
and concerned with redistributing rather than creating wealth, and should therefore
be side-lined while policy focuses on the urgent task of dealing with the crisis and
restoring growth. In the EU Recovery Plan, for example, neither gender nor equality
were mentioned (Bettio et al., 2012). The idea that economic growth can be redistri-
butive or that social policy can be economically productive are consequently over-
looked (Perrons and Plomien, 2013) - and yet austerity policies are bad for growth
and, as discussed below, have marked gender impacts.
Given the different roles that women and men play in the economy, they have been
affected in different ways by the crisis and austerity. Men were more adversely af-
fected in the initial aftermath owing to their over-representation in the construction
and manufacturing sectors, but benefitted more from the subsequent expansionary
policies which focused on physical infrastructure.. By contrast, women are badly
affected by austerity policies owing to their over-representation in public sector em-
ployment, among users of public sector services and welfare claimants.
This seems to be the broad picture, though the experience of different countries
varies. In the UK the coalition government is seeking to do more than meet the EU’s
stability targets by completely eliminating the public sector deficit altogether and
reducing the level of government expenditure as a proportion of GDP to 35% – i.e.
to pre-welfare state levels (HM Treasury 2014). Yet House of Commons research
found that in the 2010 budget, 73% of the cuts in public expenditure fell on women
(see also WBG 2014). The groups that gain from these policies are those with higher
income who are largely immune from state welfare spending and creditors whose
17
incomes depend on a stable economy and low levels of inflation. This deflationary
bias has negative effects for employment and the well-being of the majority throu-
gh depressing demand.
Priorities for the future
So what alternatives are there and how can the EU help to ensure that the commit-
ments to gender equality and social inclusion more generally are not lost?
Clearly countries cannot run up government deficits and debt indefinitely, not least
because large amounts of public money would have to be spent on interest re-
payments to creditors. But there is no clear idea as to what a maximum should be,
and this would depend in part on what the debt was being used for – whether it was
generating returns in the future or whether it was being dissipated in unproductive
ways. There are, therefore, a number of ways in which fiscal space can be managed
and each of these have gender differentiated outcomes, see Box 1.
Thomas Piketty (2014: 499-541) points out that of the possible solutions to re-
solving public debt - privatisation of public assets, taxation, inflation or prolonged
austerity - the latter is “the worst solution in terms of both justice and efficiency”.
Europe has both the highest level of private wealth in the world, yet ironically also
the “greatest difficulty in resolving its public debt crisis”, which would not be so se-
vere had taxes on top incomes stayed at 1980 levels – around 80% in the UK and
closer to 60% in Germany and France.
The UK Women’s Budget Group also argues for increased taxes but recognises that
if gender equality policies are to be more effective, it is critical that they are deve-
loped within a gender sensitive macroeconomic framework, as otherwise gender
equality policies will always be palliatives rather than resolutions. This sentiment
has been voiced many times, but evidence is growing to support the analysis.
For a group of countries in both northern and southern Europe, Hannah Bargawi
and Giovanna Cozzi (2014) - using the CAM Cambridge-Alphametrics Model (CAM)
- show that a gender-sensitive macroeconomic scenario based on an expansion
of government investment and expenditure and targeted at female employment
would produce better outcomes in terms of EU economic and social objectives than
the ‘business-as-usual’ approach of pursuing austerity. More specifically, they find
that this would result in higher levels of employment, greater reductions in the em-
ployment differential between men and women, higher levels of economic growth
and a greater reduction in debt.
Instead of growing wealth for a few amidst rising inequality, this gender-sensitive
expansion thus provides sustainable growth that benefits the wider society. In their
model, the deficit also falls, albeit less than in the business-as-usual scenario, but
the gains elsewhere still suggest that the alternative model is preferable and more
sustainable (see also Antonopoulos and Kim, 2011).
The role of the European Union
Research on alternatives is therefore emerging. The EU’s key role is to be less blin-
kered in its economic thinking and to be open to the work and findings of feminist
and heterodox economists. It should also reinvigorate the gender mainstreaming of
policies and broaden this analysis in order to assess the impact on different social
groups, including class, race, and migrant status, to name but a few. To facilitate
18
this process, Eurostat should ensure that data is sufficiently gender differentiated to
facilitate gender budgeting.
What is clear is that the existing policies are not working and have extremely nega-
tive impacts on those already marginalised. By ensuring that the economy serves
society rather than being managed by a few for a few, the EU is more likely to reach
its objective for economic and social cohesion and greater gender equality.
Box 1. Bringing gender to the negotiation of fiscal space
Fiscal space can be defined in a number of ways. The International Monetary Fund
(IMF) states that it is “room in a government’s budget that allows it to provide re-
sources for a desired purpose without jeopardizing the sustainability of its financial
position or the state of the economy” (IMF cited by UNDP 2007). In this definition,
the needs of the economy are prioritised and these needs are determined by a
neoclassical view of the economy which advocates a small state, low deficit and
minimum taxation to allow maximum market flexibility.
By contrast, the United Nations’ Development Programme (UNDP) defines fiscal
space as the “financing that is available to government as a result of concrete
policy actions for enhancing resource mobilization, and the reforms necessary to
secure the enabling governance, institutional and economic environment for these
policy actions to be effective, for a specified set of development objectives” (UNDP
2007:1). This definition could be modified by gender mainstreaming to become:
19
“Fiscal space is the available financing, designated by policy choices, to provide

the necessary resources for a specific set of social, economic, and environmental
objectives, taking into account the specific needs of marginalized groups using race,
gender and class impact analysis” (Ida, 2013).
In the first definition, the markets become the arbiter of social decision-making,
whereas the latter definitions allow social and gender justice to come into play in
state decision-making – in effect allowing the economy to work for society rather
than vice versa.
20
A renewed focus on gender

By Janne Fardal Kristoffersen
I must be honest and confess that gender equality was not a topic that interested
me at the beginning of my political career. I was not passionate about it at all. It was
an issue that had long been ‘owned’ by the socialist parties and was often associa-
ted with radical 1970s’ feminists who were referred to often in the media and in di-
scussions. This was not a group that I could identify with – hence my lack of interest.
Then, in 2004, I received a report showing that my municipality was ranked the
fourth worst in Norway for gender equality. This aroused my competitive instincts
and marked the start of my engagement on gender equality and the challenges this
poses for living standards, even though it was still largely the preserve of politicians
from the left at that time in Norway. Now gender equality is a key issue for all
Norwegian parties, although we do not always agree on how to achieve it.
Both left- and right-wing parties must pay attention
It is extremely important that both left- and right-wing parties pay attention to gen-
der equality. I have noticed a big change in public attitudes towards this issue. Those
who previously regarded work on gender equality as unnecessary and pointless now
see the importance of making it a priority. So my plea to all those working on this is-
sue is to do whatever you can to make conservative parties ‘pick up the ball’. If only
left-wing parties focus on this issue, we lose half of the population in Europe; right-
wing parties must also engage in gender-equality issues and be active in debates.
What disturbs me most is the portrayal of women as victims! I believe that it is es-
sential for women to take responsibility for their own lives: we need to see ourselves
as strong and resourceful people who can and will make a difference. It is a mistake
to see women as weaker members of society, as people who have to be helped and
looked after. Instead of angry voices talking about “poor” women, activists should
focus on facts, use all the good role models we have and show them to the world.
If young people never find female role models, how on earth can they believe that
it is normal for women to hold leading positions in business, in board rooms, in the
workforce or in politics. For me, it is important to use all our resources to the full,
which means that women also must contribute.
To do this, it is important to evaluate the current degree of equality in all countries
and municipalities. Only by focusing on facts can we show how important it is for
societies to give everyone equal opportunities.
Women in politics
Politicians have power and play an important role in society, so why don’t more wo-
men play an active part in politics? We need more women who are willing to make
a difference by getting involved at both the local and national level.
It is vital to involve members of nomination committees in this debate to make
them see the importance of getting women on to their party lists at election time.
My experience is that it takes time to persuade women to say yes: you have ask
them early in the process and explain why their experience and abilities make them
21
interesting for the party. It is a good idea to promise them a mentor if they agree to
be a candidate. What does not work well is simply calling them and assuming that
they will agree after a ten-minute chat on the phone. Men might do that – and they
seldom think that they are not good enough – but most women think that to beco-
me a candidate for elected office, they need to be experts on all political subjects.
This difference is both striking and sad.
Norwegian research tells us that women do not give more of their votes to other
women, but that may be because the men on the list are better known, are more
often in the newspapers and attract more attention. Or could the answer be that
we are used to grey-haired men with ties in politics and feel safer giving them our
votes?
There is no doubt that we have a job to do to explain why it is important that more
women stand for and get elected to public office.
Good mothers can also have a full-time job!
Striving for power and leadership does not come naturally to many of us. We must
change these attitudes. We must cheer on success in politics and in the workforce,
not just in sports, if we are to have a robust workforce able to compete with the
rest of the world.
In the southern part of Norway, women are still expected to devote the majority of
their time to their families; to take most of the responsibility for taking care of their
homes, children, parents, in-laws etc. In reality, this means many women have two
full-time jobs and often fail to take any time out for themselves, with the conse-
quent risk of falling ill. In some cases, this may reflect their men’s lack of interest in
domestic responsibilities. In others, the women themselves may be partly respon-
sible by not allowing men into their home ‘domain’. If women are not willing to let
men take over some of their domestic responsibilities, then they are also responsi-
ble for men not contributing more on the home front.
Every municipality must have an equality plan
If a municipality wants to be attractive and attract new inhabitants, to entice young

people with high skills and education levels, then we also need to show that we are
innovative. A lack of gender equality is not innovative!
Today’s new graduates are young people who take gender equality for granted and
we cannot be perceived by them as ‘slow’ or ‘backward’. This means that every mu-
nicipality must work on this issue and draw up its own equality plan. Annual action
programmes should prioritise and identify concrete actions to foster gender equa-
lity. Municipalities must also provide 100% nursery coverage to enable all those
women who want to play an active part in the labour force to do so.
In kindergartens and schools, giving children greater courage and improved self-
esteem should be a priority to provide them with the tools to take charge of their
own future career choices based on their individual desires and talents, rather than
on traditional gender-based expectations. It is also important to involve pupils, pa-
rents and staff in the work on gender equality.
I love my kids, but I would have been a terrible mum if I had to stay at home all day.
It really is possible to live an active life, work full-time and still be a good mother.
22
Well-educated mothers can support their children better, whether in discussing im-
portant matters in life or helping them with homework, and can in general be better
role models than mothers who stay at home 24/7. In the south of Norway, many
women work part-time; having a full-time job is crucial to being entitled to better
welfare benefits: nine out of ten low-income pensioners in Norway are women. Sa-
lary, sick leave, maternity leave and pensions are based on income.
Having a job contributes to defining who you are, and it influences how others per-
ceive you. Society needs as many people as possible to contribute to maintain our
current levels of social welfare and the competitiveness of our businesses and in-
dustries. Those who are part of the work force are also more economically indepen-
dent: women who do not work or have part-time jobs, are for example, the financial
losers in a divorce. Women must understand the links between these issues.
Gender equality is a topic for men
We have to create a stronger academic environment to address gender equality is-

sues and provide good networking opportunities for people to meet and share ideas
and experiences.
These are challenges that women and men must resolve together. Gender equality
is not an issue that women can or should tackle alone. We need people with passion
to pursue a more gender-equal world. We also need to keep making the argument
for gender equality. It takes time for those arguments to reach people, and to win
over hearts and minds. The message also needs to be straightforward: we need to
be able to define the concept of gender equality in such a way that ‘ordinary’ mem-
bers of the public can understand why it is important.
Gender equality is very simple: it is about taking away unfair obstacles so that
everyone has the same opportunities. Who can be against that?
23
Men as a target for action in gender equality policies

By Jeff Hearn
How can gender equality be achieved if it is only up to women to change? Achieving

gender equality means making demands on men as well.
The emergence of men as a target for action stems not only from women’s strug-
gles, but also from other movements such as those campaigning for ethnic and
racial justice, labour reform, and gay and transgender rights – and from some men’s
resistance to those movements.
Targeting men through gender equality policies means engaging with some very
different agendas and needs to be a long-term process. But which men? It may
be tempting to focus on those who are explicitly sexist or dominant, but it should
involve all men. Gender equality should not just focus on work, but has to become
normal and normalised for boys as well as men: in kindergartens, schools, workpla-
ces, governments, business, sport, religion - the lot! And yes, in families, households,
friendship, intimate relationships and sex too.
Yet it is amazing how the mass of policies and reports on gender equality and re-
sources devoted to it via the EU and the European Commission hardly mention men,
and make no demands at all for them to change. They are still all too often treated
as the unspoken norm, presented as “policy-makers”, “stakeholders”, and so on. This
is scandalous.
Having said that, there have been various, though often ignored, initiatives at the EU
level focused on men, boys and gender equality since the mid-1990s. Most recently,
a Study on the Role of Men in Gender Equality was published, drawing on expertise
from all EU member states and beyond (Scambor, et al., 2013). Such initiatives
must continue, and must not be hijacked by men to try to argue that they are really
the ones suffering most from discrimination.
Costs, difference, and privilege
There are many reasons why men can become interested in gender equality inclu-
ding, as Mike Messner discusses, to highlight and redress the costs of ‘being a man’;
to tackle differences amongst men; and to end male privileges (Messner, 1997).
These motives are not necessarily in conflict, but they may become so if taken to
their logical conclusion, for example, when only costs are emphasised and privilege
is forgotten.
First, the costs. These might include costs to some men’s health and life expectancy,
risks from occupational hazards and lower educational achievements. These are
especially important when coupled with disadvantages of class, ethnicity and other
inequalities. Being a patriarchal man is probably not good for your health. There
is also the key question of violence and sexual violence towards men and boys by
other men and older boys. There is a strong case for men to become more involved
in gender equality on all these grounds.
Next, differences. The motivation for engagement here comes from differences
amongst men: age, ethnicity, gender identity, migration status, sexuality, and much
more, as well as composite interests of, for example, black gay men or white older
24
men. Policies for men are developed in various areas, including fatherhood and
health and anti-violence programmes, but these may not recognise differences
between them. The very question of ‘what is a man?’ is becoming problematic, not
least because of increasing numbers of older and old men living lives that are a very
long away from the stereotypes of their masculine youth (Jackson, 2003; 2015).
From the perspective of ending male privileges, men’s involvement in gender equa-
lity means acting against oppression, injustice and violations of gender systems,
and seeking a better life for all - women, men, children. It suggests a need for pro-
feminist, (pro)-gay strategies across all policy areas. Rather than seeking to change
only those men defined as ‘problems’ or excluded, the focus may shift to men in
positions with the power to exclude and control. For example, anti-violence interven-
tions could be directed to ending men’s silence on these issues.
Bringing the strands together
These three motivations may come from different directions, but they are not mu-
tually exclusive. There is much to be done to bring them together. In developing
effective policy responses, splits between ‘problems which some men experience’
and ‘problems which some men create’ need to be bridged (Hearn and Pringle,
2006/2009). An example is the link between men as fathers, and men as violent
partners or parents: in many countries, there may be policies to promote fatherhood
and then, quite separately, a policy to tackle violence by men. This gap needs to be
bridged.
According to recent research by Øystein Gullvåg Holter, greater gender equality is
likely to bring greater happiness, less depression, and better well-being not only for
women, but also for men, through better health and a reduced threat of violence
from other men (Holter, 2014). This refutes the argument of anti-feminist men who
suggest that greater gender equality harms men. Ending violence and the threat of
violence by men against men is a fundamental motivation for ending gender ine-
quality. Other benefits include positive impacts of increased love and care for and
from men, and less likelihood of nuclear annihilation and ecological disaster.
The impact of inequalities on men
Men are not only men; boys are not only boys. So how are men’s relations to gen-
der equality, inequality gender discrimination to be understood? There may be rare
cases of discrimination against men by women, but much more common are men’s
negative treatment of other men for being gay, black, old, young, unmanly, and so
on. The disadvantages experienced by some men and boys largely results from
domination by other men.
Poorer outcomes for some men and boys are not the same as gender discrimina-
tion. Most inequalities that affect men and boys do not result from domination by
women. Lower educational performance by some boys, for example, results largely
from poverty, class, migration status and attitudes towards masculinity that are not
conducive (or are even antagonistic) to education.
Unequal social divisions – by class, race and religion – all have an impact on men.
Gender equality policies have to be pro-equality and anti-hierarchy more generally.
Though, in one sense, some forms of ‘gender equality’ can co-exist alongside power
hierarchies and inequalities, reducing wider inequalities generally promotes more
25
thorough-going gender equality. This means opposing the intensification of neolibe-

ral capitalism, with its increasing inequalities and hierarchies, opposing heteronor-
mativity and structural domination, and it extends to inequalities between societies
within Europe and beyond. Addressing inequalities generally can stimulate men’s
positive engagement with gender equality, with a focus on social exclusion and
inclusion. Many white people and white men support anti-racism, but men rarely
identify themselves as being anti-sexism. Anti-racism and anti-classism necessarily
involve anti-sexism.
Gendering the ‘non-gendered’
The ‘man problem’ and differences amongst men may remain obscured partly be-
cause so much policy is about men, but not recognised as such, partly because
explicit policies are at uneven stages of development. Strategies for change are
needed at all levels and in all forums: this means thinking about gender agendas
more broadly, in transport, trade, environment, security and foreign policy. While
gender policy around ‘domestic’ and interpersonal violence is well recognised, this
is less the case for civil disorder, terrorism, racist violence, riots, state violence, mi-
litarism and war.
The economic crisis has highlighted key biases in policy. Finance ministers, financial
boards, economists and banks have generally maintained a ‘strategic silence’ on
gender, even though their policies have an uneven impact on men and women. De-
flationary policies, policies based on assumptions of male breadwinners and public
spending cuts (rather than higher taxes) tend to affect men less than women. In
some countries, the crisis initially had a stronger impact on men’s employment, but
later more on women. Policies designed to boost economic growth without conside-
ring their overall impact tend to benefit men more than women overall, not least in
terms of the resources allocated by governments, investments and priorities. Men
tend to work in the capitalist sector more than women, and to identify more closely
with narrowly economic ideologies and less with welfare values.
The transnational dimension
Gender policies that are directed explicitly and specifically at men have been deve-
loped most fully when they address issues, such as men’s health and ‘domestic’ vio-
lence, that may appear as immediate and close to the individual. Such policies are
mostly framed within national welfarism concepts rather than within transnational
capitalism, global finance, or ecology frameworks. All the issues outlined above are
affected by transnational changes, raising the need for transnational strategies.
Internet and the use and development of ICTs create new challenges in this area.
Many transnational agencies now address, at least rhetorically, the place of men
in moving towards gender equality; the links between masculinity, nationalism and
racism; and the risks of failing to act. Taking transnational action to foster change
is essential, not least to counter transnational neoliberal hegemonies (Hearn, 2015).
Contradictions and futures
Engaging men in gender equality means dealing with many contradictions, between:
the power and privileges of some men, and the marginalisation of others; the expli-
cit naming of men as men, and questioning the very category of ’men’ per se; seeing
gender in terms of binaries, such as masculinity/femininity, and as a continuum; and
26
fostering changes in attitudes among men and boys to become more gender equal,
while supporting those who are suffering. Men and gender equality is neither a zero
sum game, nor a win-win situation.
Finally, even among men who oppose privileging one gender over another, there
are totally different notions of the aims of gender equality in the long term, never
mind among those who are anti-gender equality. To paraphrase Judith Lorber, is
the key task we face to introduce reforms and abolish gender imbalances between
women and men, to resist and abolish patriarchy as a general gender system, or to
be rebellious and abolish gender categories? (Lorber, 2005) Do we aim to celebrate,
transform or abolish ‘men’ as a category of gender power? These questions suggest
reasons for involving men in gender equality and very different futures for them.
27
PART 2: What have we achieved so far and what challenges remain in key areas?
Part II: What have we

achieved so far and what
challenges remain in key
areas?
Challenging stereotypes and every-day sexism

By Brigitte Grésy
It is now 40 years since the EU and its Member States drew up policies on equality,
with a mixture of regulations and incentives. Reality is very different, however.
In France, we still face the serious problem of the ‘20%’: 27% of pay discrimination
and while women account for over 50% of the population, they only make up just
over 20% of those in national politics, on boards of directors and media experts, and
only 20% of domestic tasks and part-time jobs are carried out by men.
There are still some inescapable paradoxes – a formidable incursion by women into
the labour market in the 20th century, with 83% of women aged 25 to 49 now in
work, but facing some deep-rooted inequalities: since the 1990s women’s access to
the labour market has been mainly related to an increase in part-time jobs ; there
has been an increase in job insecurity for women; a widening gap between qualified
and unqualified women; unbalanced parenthood7 as women devote an hour and a
half more each day to housework and parental duties than men, who never allow
domestic responsibilities to threaten their careers; and, the ultimate paradox, the
fact that there are more women than men graduating upon completion of their ini-
tial training, but their qualifications are less valued on the labour market.
Equality is making ambiguous progress, and this is quite clearly the result of a lack
of effectiveness in public policies on equality between men and women. To resolve
this, we must make a step change and modify our vision of the future.
Indeed, the imperative nowadays is to confront the systems of representation that
explain these opposing trends. Everything moves on as if our thought processes
were forged using two different brains: one modern, shouting ‘long life to equality’
loud and clear; and the other one archaic inciting us, albeit against our will, to re-
produce old systems of representation with the division of the sexes into traditional
social roles. Thus, we all put on ostentatious displays of seemingly discussing things
in an egalitarian manner – the only politically correct way to behave – while in fact
continuing to behave and act in a profoundly archaic way on a day-to-day basis.
The problem has to do with stereotypes which legitimise inequalities, with men and
women frozen in their respective complementary roles based on their expected be-
7 See the latest INSEE Working hours survey, for 2009 and 2010
28
haviours, and bound by formal ‘rules’ they cannot infringe: ‘I am a man/woman, so I

must do this but I cannot do that’. In this ‘male vs female’ way of looking at things,
relating not only to men and women’s places in society but also their competences
and skills – private vs public, internal vs external, strict vs intuitive, numerical skills
vs verbal skills –being a man is also given a positive symbolic value, in line with
the well-known sexual differential evoked by Françoise Héritier. So we must always
have two principles uppermost in our minds in order to be able to organise our re-
sistance and build our future: little boys and little girls do not learn the same things
at school; by the same token, men and women are not treated equally in life.
So is the way children are cared for in dedicated facilities neutral? Yes in theory but
no in practice: everything happens – in relation to toys, activities, child/adult inte-
ractions, clothing, sports, and books – as if there were two worlds: an outside world
with plenty of space for building things, for speed and taking risks, for boys; and an
inside world, quiet and peaceful, a conformist environment in which attention is paid
to appearances, for girls. The consequence of this is a real loss of opportunities for
children, both in terms of self-esteem and risk-taking, in terms of learning analyti-
cal and spatial reasoning versus verbal aptitude, and also in terms of learning to be
independent.
The same opposing patterns can be seen in schools: teachers’ expectations and
the unequal access to knowledge makes words and numbers areas of specialist
excellence for each sex. This unequal treatment actually teaches boys to assert
themselves and challenge authority, while girls are taught to submit to authority,
and take up less space physically and intellectually: in a nutshell, to ‘know their
place’ and stay in it.
So are women equal at work? Yes in theory, but no in the reality of their day-to-
day lives, since they are subject to a three-fold burden within their private sphere:
the difference in the amount of time women spend on housework in comparison
to men, is enormous; women specialise in the most time-consuming tasks; and
women compensate for the lack of effort made by men when a child arrives. This
leads to systematic discrimination against them on the labour market, because
employers associate women with a whole host of stereotypes: less availability, less
mobility, and less willingness to be flexible. In their eyes, women are not worth as
much as men on the labour market, and this is at the heart of pay discrimination,
which means women get a lower return on their investment in gaining experience
or qualification.
Then there is the every-day sexism (Gresy, 2009) with all the little signs that infan-
tilise women, undermine their credibility, and foster perceptions of inferiority in an
underhand, insidious manner, all of which – over and above the suffering it causes
– prevents women from escaping the stereotypical image of their place in society
as well as delegitimising those little signs. There is also the sexism that women im-
pose on themselves, which weakens their self-belief in their performance and thus
how easy they find it to ask for more money or a promotion. This is the ‘legitimacy
conflict’ in which they find themselves trapped: they either feel as if they are aban-
doning their responsibilities at home (i.e. in the private sphere), or playing the role
of usurpers in the public sphere, whilst men enjoy deep-seated historical legitimacy.
Then there is the new avatar of sexism which is entering the labour market with
full force: ‘benevolent’ sexism in which women are told that they are champions of
a new style of governance, with modern management skills such as intuition, em-
pathy, and the ability to negotiate – all of which contains hidden traps. This fosters
sexual divisions at work, with a hierarchy in which professional care roles such as
29
human resources and communications are mainly given to women, thus reflecting
their ‘natural’ skills, while men continue to perform roles involving money, strategy,
and power, even though these skills have nothing to do with sex.
Are there obstacles in men’s paths as well? No, because despite growing desires
for a better balance in life, resistance to change remains very strong. But yes, in
the sense that the set of ‘masculine’ characteristics – competitiveness, control over
emotions, and exclusion of anything which is not ‘masculine’ – often creates exces-
sive behaviour in men, causing harm to others and to themselves. There is a high
price to be paid for hegemonic masculinity, so much so that this is now unleashing a
sense of double ‘dispossession’: in the professional sphere, which no longer delivers
the promises men expected and in which many resolute competitors are emerging,
i.e. talented women; and in the private sphere, where they must play a parental role
which has been weakened by their absence.
For men and women to be considered equal, they must be able to do the same
jobs, as differences between the sexes do not necessarily imply any differences
in aptitude and skills. Yes, there are biological and physiological differences which
mean that male and female bodies behave, reproduce and approach each other in
different ways (thus children learn about ‘otherness’, which gives them feelings of
both power and frustration, of incompleteness and interdependence). But this does
not mean differences in aptitudes, qualities, and skills moulded and legitimised by
these types of ‘male’ or ‘female’ labels – mere social constructions which are often
presented as facts of nature. Is emotion female and rigour male? Certainly not. Ri-
gour is rigour, and varies from one individual to another, depending on the learning
process and their talents.
Four levers for equality
So, here as elsewhere, only a systematic approach can have an impact on both
real inequalities and the rigidity of systems of representation. Four levers may be
activated:
1. Offering sufficient, flexible, quality, and affordable childcare and, more broadly,
services for families, provided by either public bodies or private companies.
2. The fostering of parental equality by public bodies and companies, as well as
promoting the concept of lifelong parenting, thus breaking or challenging the
stereotype of mothers unavailable for work, and developing new ways for pa-
rents to allocate responsibility for different tasks. Enabling men to take paterni-
ty leave without facing criticism, or (even better), introducing childbirth leave –
a month for each parent, non-transferable – and shortening paid parental leave
at a given percentage of previous pay for a number of months which cannot
be transferred to the other spouse, are just some of the pathways which could
contribute towards increased acceptance of parenthood in the world of work.
There are two components to this as far as companies are concerned: firstly,
that of time, especially the management of day-to-day time – meeting times,
responses to emergencies, flexi-time, time–banking schemes, and recourse to
teleworking or part-time working with the necessary contractual patterns; and
secondly, that of career management – skills assessment, done nowadays using
so-called ‘neutral’ criteria which are de facto male ones (presenteeism, linear
career structures, detection of potential at about the age of 30) must be recon-
sidered from the standpoint of parenthood, for both men and women.
30
3. Promoting diversity in companies, to smash both glass ceilings and glass walls:
the logic of quotas must be applied to boards of directors and quantified objec-
tives set for the progression of under-represented sexes throughout the gover-
nance chain, as well as in recruitment and training. To smash glass walls, there
needs to be a drive to revalue professions that are dominated by women, and
reassess the way they are graded. And judges themselves, through the jurispru-
dence they develop on sex discrimination law and the concept of equal pay for
the same employment or work of equal value, can ensure that companies fulfil
their responsibilities in relation to equality.
4. Challenging representational systems and driving out (from birth but especially
in schools) anything which encapsulates so-called ‘male’ and ‘female’ beha-
viour. It is essential to fight the helplessness instilled into girls and boys, to do
away with the moulding which resigns girls to dressing up and playing mother,
and boys to clambering about and figuring things out. So, for women, the ur-
gency lies in unashamedly challenging male and female labels on everything
related to aptitudes, qualities and social skills, to dare to train in any area where
there are opportunities and they want to work, to seek role models other than
top models, and to learn to confront and relate to others, and negotiate a fair
division of labour. As for men, they must throw themselves fearlessly into le-
arning emotional literacy and becoming domesticated, without falling into an
exhausting daily adjustment in how responsibilities are shared.
Because ultimately, whether you are a man or a woman, you must learn to make
good use of people’s inability to be everything; somehow, it is not in the least about
being preoccupied with whether you are a man or a woman, but rather being an
individual connected to others. It is about negotiating a viable economic contract
which relies on both provision of and support for care, and a new sexual contract
between men and women.
31
Equal pay for work of equal value

By Damian Grimshaw
‘The principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value as laid down
by Article 141 of the Treaty and consistently upheld in the case-law of the Court
of Justice constitutes an important aspect of the principle of equal treatment
between men and women and an essential and indispensable part of the acquis
communautaire, including the case-law of the Court concerning sex discrimination’
(Pre-amble to the Directive 2006/54/EC).
There is a long-standing consensus within Europe that women and men should
receive equal pay for work that is considered to be the same or of equal value. This
principle of ‘equal pay’ was enshrined in the EU’s 1957 Treaty of Rome, and the ac-
companying directives - introduced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s - were incorporated
into the single Equal Opportunities Directive of 2006.8
Alongside rising employment rates and greater equality in structures of care, welfa-
re and households, women in many EU member states have undoubtedly benefited
from significant progress towards equal pay. However, there are no grounds for
optimism in the current economic and political climate. Indeed, the current path of
European development appears deaf to Amartya Sen’s advice that the freedoms
required for women and men to enjoy equal, participative and healthy lives are
constitutive of economic development rather than a luxury to be set aside during
periods of economic uncertainty (Sen, 1999: 35-53). Furthermore, too many mem-
ber states have failed to shake off their institutional and cultural legacies of a
strong male-breadwinner approach to women’s position in society. Without radical
changes in their gender regimes, (Pascall and Lewis, 2004; O’Connor et al., 1999;
Lewis, 1997) policies addressing pay transparency and gender-neutral job evalua-
tion systems will not achieve equal pay.
Four issues demand urgent policy action. All four are endemic across much of Eu-
rope and exert a seemingly intractable stranglehold on efforts to build a European
society that promises women and men the freedom to earn equal pay.
Issue 1: women’s work is undervalued
Academic analyses, as well as legal decisions, demonstrate that failures to achieve

equal pay are caused by undervaluation related to sex discrimination and not an
overvaluation of men’s work. In other words, employers benefit from access to a
higher quality of labour for a given wage.9
Five factors contribute to an unequal, gendered construction of value:
• Visibility: women’s skills are often invisible, for example when they lack accredi-
tation (e.g. social care), or they are in jobs aggregated into large, undifferenti-
ated pay bands;
8 The 2006 Directive (2006/54/EC) merged previous Directives, in particular the 1975 and 1976
Directives on equal pay and equal treatment (regarding access to employment, training, promotion
and working conditions).
9 This definition and the description of ‘the five Vs’ of undervalued work are adapted from Grimshaw,
and Rubery (2007): 7 and 58-64.
32
• Valuation: women’s skills may be under-valued where grading structures are

locked in to historical norms based on male-type skills and/or the belittling of
work done by women (England, 2005);
• Vocation: women’s skills are often treated as ‘natural’, deriving from their ‘es-
sence’ as mothers/carers, with low rewards assumed to be compensated for by
job satisfaction;
• Value added: women are over-represented in low value-added segments of pro-
duction or in jobs where it is difficult to enhance productivity;
• Variance: pressures on women to assume most household duties create gender
disparity in available time and gendered preconceptions about levels of commit-
ment to work.
Issue 2: neoliberal fiscal policy hurts women most
The Great Recession and subsequent austerity regimes have had a radical impact
on equal pay in Europe, by reducing the scope and scale of the welfare state (Bettio
et al., 2012; Karamessini and Rubery, 2013; Leschke and Jepsen, 2014). Two pillars
of current European macroeconomic policy have caused particular damage to equal
pay: public spending cuts and reduced welfare benefits.
Public spending cuts put new obstacles in women’s path to equal pay both by redu-
cing good employment opportunities in the public sector and by cutting pay in jobs
with high concentrations of women. In many member states, fair pay for public sec-
tor jobs (underpinned by gender-neutral job evaluations and collective negotiation)
has been ideologically re-interpreted as an undeserved premium. Instead of rooting
out persistent sex discrimination in the private sector, policy-makers have tended to
use the private sector as a benchmark and unilaterally implement public sector pay
cuts.10 In countries where the public sector has not traditionally been regarded as
a source of decent pay, public sector cuts have had an especially damaging effect
on moves towards equal pay by reversing the limited progress made (see Box 2).
Box 2. Effects of cuts in public spending
Dramatic public spending cuts were imposed in Hungary during 2006-2010. A

salary freeze and abolition of the 13th month wage reduced real average ear-
nings by 16%, compared with a 6% cut in the male-dominated private sector
(2008-2010 data). Analysis suggests the public sector wage penalty has had
‘a decisive impact on the gender wage gap’. A 1996-2004 trend towards more
equal pay was reversed by austerity measures: statistical analysis shows that
for each 1 log point fall in public sector pay relative to the private sector, the
gender pay gap widened by 0.4 log points (Altwicker-Hámori and Köllő, 2013).
Cuts in welfare benefits have lowered women’s ‘reservation wage’ - that is, their
freedom to either wait or bargain for better working conditions. Countries with lo-
wer welfare benefits support larger stocks of low-wage ‘junk jobs’ - and the greater
the incidence of low-wage jobs, the wider the gender pay gap.11 Cuts in eligibility
10 See Vaughan-Whitehead (2013), in particular Table 1.2.

11 This is caused by women’s over-representation in low-wage work, with female shares double the
male share in the UK and four times higher in Germany, the two countries in Europe with highest low-
wage shares (Grimshaw, 2011).
33
for unemployment insurance and income assistance disadvantage women, who are
already less likely to be entitled to welfare support, and increase their risks of low-
quality employment.
Issue 3: levelling down wages is an unwelcome route to gender equality
In a context of falling or stagnant real wages across Europe.12 there is a risk that
gains in gender equality result from a levelling down of men and women’s pay. For
the EU as a whole, the gender pay gap narrowed from 17.6 to 16.4 points during
the initial crisis period (2007-2010), with significant gains in ten member states.13
However, as Bettio and colleagues put it, “the recession is making everybody worse
off, men a little more so than women” (Bettio et al. 2012: 99): men were more likely
than women to suffer cuts in bonuses and overtime, and private sector job losses hit
men more than women. This pattern may have changed since 2010, with austerity
in most of Europe contributing to continuing reductions in real wages, possibly af-
fecting women more than men (see Box 3).
Box 3. Gender pay gap and real wages in UK
The gender pay gap in the UK has narrowed in the last decade, but should be
interpreted in light of trends in real average pay (adjusted for inflation). Pre-
crisis (2003-2009), women and men benefited from rising real earnings and
the gender pay gap narrowed by almost four points (see figure). Post-crisis
(2009-2013), real wages fell for both sexes and the gender pay gap narrowed,
but at a slower rate. Real pay in 2013 was around 8% lower for men and 6%
lower for women than in 2009.
£18.00
24
£17.00
22
Gender pay gap (percentage points)
£16.00 20
Real average hourly pay
18
£15.00
16
£14.00
14
£13.00
12
£12.00 10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
GPG Female pay Male pay
Source: UK Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, ONS, own compilation.
12 See evidence in the ILO’s Global Wage Report 2014/15, Figures 1.5 and 1.6.
13 A significant gain is defined here as a reduction in the pay gap by more than one percentage point
and occurred in Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Sweden, Cyprus, Denmark, the UK
and Malta (in rank order), see Bettio et al. (2013), table 2.1.
34
Issue 4: working mothers face dual discrimination
Across much of Europe, working mothers suffer a wage penalty over and above
that for being a woman: mothers earn less on average than women without de-
pendent children and far less than fathers with similar household and employment
characteristics.14 The evidence raises fundamental questions about member states’
capacity to deliver a fair distribution of income that can support the reproduction
and rearing of children.
The size of the motherhood wage penalty varies, with evidence that it is lower in
Sweden and Finland than in Germany and the UK, for example (Harkness and Wal-
dfogel, 2003). These penalties continue even after children become adults: research
suggests that although fathers’ earnings are unaffected by childbirth, mothers ex-
perience cumulative and persistent wage inequality over their lifetimes. The fact
that gender gaps widen with age in many member states suggest that mothers may
not be able to make up for lost ground and become trapped into careers with limited
pay/promotion opportunities.
Further research for different European countries is needed, but the available evi-
dence identifies key factors that influence motherhood wage penalties: a mother’s
age when her first child is born, low levels of education, short maternity leave, retur-
ning to full-time work and employment in a male-dominated workplace.15 Moreover,
a country’s welfare state regime plays an over-riding role, especially via family
support policies (leave arrangements, childcare, flexible working and informal family
security) and the tax treatment of second earners.
New policy actions on equal pay
Women’s entitlement to work for equal pay with men ought to be re-instated as a
core goal of European development rather than a luxury dependent on economic
growth. Reflecting the issues outlined above, European policy-makers ought to com-
mit to:
1. Develop programmes of accreditation and professionalisation for targeted are-
as of undervalued women’s work (e.g. childcare, care for the elderly, clerical
work).
2. Halt fiscal retrenchment programmes to avoid the adverse equal pay effects of
cuts in public sector jobs, pay and welfare.
3. Ensure wage growth is distributed fairly to lower-paid workers (e.g. by raising
the statutory minimum wage and encouraging collective bargaining in low-wa-
ge sectors).
4. Strengthen family policies to support mothers’ pay and employment prospects,
and counteract stereotypical expectations about their commitment at work.
14 Examples of the many studies on this issue include Davies and Pierre (2005); Ejrnæs and Kunze
(2013); Joshi et al. (1999).
15 For a review of international literature see Grimshaw and Rubery (2015).
35
Pensions and gender: a critical gap in our radar screens?

By Platon Tinios
The key battles for gender balance were fought and (mostly) won in the field of
employment. As the population ages and increasing numbers of women complete
their careers, will these victories carry forward into retirement? Or will women born
in the 1950s discover that the independence they achieved while working may be
denied them in old age?
Independence is a loaded concept and certainly cannot be confined to financial
indicators. Nevertheless, being able to claim title to a steady income is, for many
people, the decisive step in securing economic independence. It is for this reason
that our focus when looking at working lives is on work discrimination and pay gaps.
Has the battle for independence already been won? Pensions as a filter
Once individuals leave employment, labour earnings are replaced by pensions. Whi-
le it is true that savings play a role, a pension is the main source of income that
comes with a ‘gender tag’ attached. Moreover, when men and women are living
together as couples, we are not able to ‘look inside the household’ and see who is
the true beneficiary of income paid to that household, such as rents or dividends.
Poverty and other well-being statistics can thus only treat this kind of income as
accruing to men and women equally. So, if we are to deal seriously with the issue of
the economic independence of older women, we must take a close look at how they
are treated by the pension system.
Pensions replace earnings from work when attachment to the labour market is se-
vered. So it is not surprising that many people assume that gender balance in the
labour market should somehow translate into pensions. The implicit conclusion may
be that this issue has already been dealt with and there is no point in fighting the
battle twice over: if women were able to secure better conditions at work than their
mothers, their pensions would be equivalently better, as a matter of course. Time
should be working in their favour.
However, pensions may not be a neutral filter. If the world of pensions has chan-
ged less than the world of work, then it is possible that some women may get an
unpleasant surprise when they retire: they may enjoy less freedom than men and
possibly less than they think they deserve. As a growing number of women are on
the threshold of finding out, the relative silence and lack of debate in this policy
area could be taken to mean that this fear is deemed by most to be far-fetched.
Pension gender gaps are, in reality, wider than pay gaps
Is it, though? In a book published in 2015 (Betti et al., 2015), some ENEGE members
attempted to approach this question systematically, looking at the EU, Israel and
the US. They created and defined a Gender Gap in Pensions indicator to shadow the
more familiar gender earnings and pay gap measures. This new indicator measures
how far women are lagging behind men; i.e. the percentage by which women’s ave-
rage pensions are lower than men’s.
36
Their conclusion is that pensions are anything but a neutral filter reflecting what
happened while a person was in employment. For a start, pension gaps were found
to be very wide (the EU average was 39%) - far wider than earnings gaps and twice
the size of pay gaps (Figure 1). Moreover, whilst being very dispersed, the link to pay
gaps was weak: the country with the lowest pension gender gap (Estonia) was also
the one with the second widest pay gap. So, while a wide pay gap is associated with
greater gender inequality in pensions, the link is not automatic. The heterogeneity
across Europe was also striking. In some countries (e.g. Malta, Spain, Belgium and
Greece), gaps in coverage remain – i.e. there are women with no access to pensions
at all. In those countries with a developed occupational pension system, access to
supplementary pensions appears to add to gender gaps. Similarly, trends over time
and across age groups (those aged 65-80 and 80-plus) were complex and hard to
generalise.
Figure 1. Gender Gap in Pension vis-à-vis Gender Gap in Annual Earnings
46 44
48 41 41 40 39
40 37 37 37 34 34
33 33 32 31 31
30 29 28 27
32 27 24
23
24 18 16
15 15 14 12
16 11
8 3
0
8
6
16 11 9
15 16 16 18 14 16 14
24 19 21 20 21 19 18 18 17
20 20 22 22
24 23 24 23 23 24
32 27
31 30
40
Gender Gap (%) in Pension: Pensioners aged 65+ Gap in annual earnings
Source: Betti et al 2015, p 41. Based on EU-SILC 2011; Structure of Earnings Survey 2010. Note: Estimate for the
GGP in Ireland is based on 2010 data.
Understanding pension gender gaps as a first step towards prevention
Wide national variations may reflect institutional factors, both those of the past and
the attempts that have been made to change them through pension reform. As a
result of all this, two apparently simple (and critical) questions proved difficult to
answer: do older groups who faced more discrimination in their working lives face
wider pension gaps? And is pension reform widening or narrowing those gaps over
time?
Complexity is inevitable. The pensions drawn by today’s older citizens are the cumu-
lative result of three types of factors.
First, pensions are affected by long-term societal trends. Today’s pension rights
result from yesterday’s work, and we know that emancipation in the labour market
and the decline of the male breadwinner paradigm proceeded at different paces
across Europe. Operating in the opposite direction, labour market innovations such
as part-time or contract working have also spread at different speeds.
37
Second comes the role of policy-driven change. Today’s pensions reflect the impact
of past reforms. As the busiest reform period has been since 2000, today’s pensio-
ners are mostly covered by transitional arrangements: they have worked under one
system and will collect their benefits under a new system which is now being set up.
These transitional generations are ‘stuck in the middle’, being protected neither by
the logic of the old system nor the new. This exposes them to discretionary policy
change. Younger pensioners in countries that reformed early will test the new sy-
stems. They will confront new risks whose social impact is not yet fully understood.
The third set of influences are short-term conjunctural changes, often linked to the
impact of the current financial crisis. Public pensions are one of the largest catego-
ries of public expenditure and can be a target of fiscal retrenchment, while private
pre-funded pensions have been hit by the fall in asset values.
Awareness gaps increase the vulnerability of older women
As these changes sweep through society, older people - and particularly older wo-
men - may all too often find they are the victims of a kind of ‘collateral damage’;
i.e. they may suffer the unintended consequences of policies whose primary impact
is thought to be elsewhere. This vulnerability is exacerbated by three gaps in awa-
reness: in statistics, pensions are often a kind of ‘gender blind spot’; in politics, older
women frequently lack a voice; and in policy-making, very technical discussions can
lead to gaps in understanding.
These awareness gaps obscure three types of pension issues, each with different
implications for pension policies.
First, issues related to the extended periods of transition: homemakers may, for in-
stance, rely on derived pension rights from their spouses and women are frequently
among those called on to make the largest adjustment.
Second, the design features of new pension systems: there are aspects of reform
which may be desirable in principle, but end up exacerbating disadvantages that
endemically affect women. Linking benefits more closely to contributions promotes
efficiency, but exacerbates the problems caused by, for example, broken careers or
the ‘motherhood penalty’. Survivors’ pensions run counter to the individualisation
of rights, but could translate into unanticipated falls in living standards for widows.
Third, flaws in the new systems: in some cases, the new arrangements may not
work as foreseen. An example of this could be the extent to which the three pillars
of pension protection complement each other: individually negotiated (third pillar)
pensions ought to help individuals with inadequate cover in work-related pensions,
but we often see the personal pension industry concentrating on groups already well
covered and turning its back on less fortunate groups. ‘Navigating’ the new systems
may also require a degree of financial sophistication that is lacking.
As state systems are increasingly being supplemented by private or collective pro-
vision, issues linked to how the new systems operate could lead to new types of
gender pension gap. In the US, access to non-state (401k) pensions is becoming the
most important determinant of gender pension gaps.16
16 This is largely corroborated in those European countries where occupational provision has pro-
ceeded furthest Betti et al. (2015).
38
Can old age still be a ‘kind of liberation’?
Writing in the 1960s, Simone de Beauvoir said the fact that “speculation upon old
age is considered primarily in terms of men” could prevent women from realising
the potential of the last age as “a kind of liberation – when at last they can look
after themselves” (de Beauvoir, 1996). Fifty years on, ‘gender blindness’ may be put-
ting this potential at risk once again. Lack of awareness of the gender implications
of pensions could allow multiple disadvantages to snowball for older women.
In years to come, some women may feel more constrained once they reach old age
and a few may even be severely affected. Exactly where and for whom such threats
are greatest cannot at this stage be determined with any degree of certainty. The
challenge for European countries is firstly to monitor pension gender imbalances
and then to help prepare a policy toolbox to deal with them. In the past, the EU has
taken a leading role in both gender balance and in ageing; it is only right that it
should now help to fix our policy radar screens on gender and ageing.
39
Gender inequality in leisure time

By J. Ignacio Gimenez-Nadal
Many measures of household economic activity have been proposed to evaluate

people’s quality of life. One of these is how much leisure time they have.
However, reliable statistics on leisure time are scarce and it is only in recent years
that data have become generally available, mainly as a result of the growth and
development of time-use surveys at national level.
But gaps remain and there is a need for for action at EU level to gather statistics
on leisure activities throughout the Union, via time-use surveys, going beyond the
Harmonized European Time Use Survey (HETUS) project which aims to harmonise
time-use statistics in the Union.
Table 1 shows that there has been an historical convergence in leisure time betwe-
en the sexes in many developed countries, with a decline in the imbalance favouring
men. But despite this, gender inequality persists in many European countries.
Table 1. Mean time in selected activities
Hours per day Decade TV Free time Sleep Personal Total

Watching Care
Men 1960s 1.23 2.49 8.07 0.74 12.53
1970s 1.67 2.86 8.06 0.86 13.45
1980s 1.76 3.08 6.96 1.71 13.51
1990s 1.73 2.69 7.77 0.65 12.84
Women
Full-time workers 1960s 0.79 1.71 7.83 0.78 11.11
1970s 1.07 2.43 8.16 0.97 12.63
1980s 1.22 2.85 6.88 2.04 12.99
1990s 1.14 2.41 7.98 0.8 12.33
Non-employed 1960s 1.16 2.26 8.59 0.74 11.11

1970s 1.72 3.09 8.4 0.91 12.63
1980s 1.63 3.48 7.43 1.83 12.99
1990s 1.58 3.29 8.27 0.79 12.33
All employment 1960s 1.1 2.14 8.35 0.76 11.11

status 1970s 1.58 2.99 8.29 0.93 12.63
1980s 1.49 3.18 7.35 1.78 12.99
1990s 1.39 2.94 8.19 0.78 12.33

Source: Gauthier, Smeeding and Furnstenberg (2004). Belgium. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom are included in the analysis.
40
Figure 2 shows the average hours per week devoted to paid and unpaid work by
those in work in 2010, and reveals that women devote more time than men to paid
and unpaid work combined (with the sole exception of the United Kingdom). So if
we consider leisure time as what is left over after work – paid or unpaid – then it is
clear that women have less leisure time than men.
Figure 2. Average hours per week devoted to paid and unpaid work, by
gender and country
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Men Women
Source: European Working Conditions Survey 2010. Averages are obtained as average value to the question “Num-
ber of hours spent in paid and unpaid work per week”.
The general narrowing of the gender gap in leisure time has been accompanied by
the gradual incorporation of women into the labour market, which is itself a result
of increased levels of education among women and their growing economic inde-
pendence from men. However, there are distinct differences in leisure time from
country to country. Figure 1 shows that the gap is comparatively small in Austria,
Belgium and France (less than 10 hours per week), and more significant in the Czech
Republic, Ireland and Spain (more than 10 hours per week).
In all countries, the main reason for this gender inequality is the time spent on hou-
sehold tasks (e.g. housework, and paid child and adult care). Figure 3 shows that in
almost all EU member states, the time devoted by women to paid work is lower than
that by men (with the sole exception of Romania). If women devote more time to
paid and unpaid work combined, it is because they spend much more time on hou-
sehold tasks than men. Thus, they are shouldering the bulk of the responsibility for
household duties even though they are also in paid work, contributing to the gender
inequality in leisure time.
41
Figure 3. Average hours per week devoted to paid work, by gender and
country
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Men Women
Source: European Working Conditions Survey 2010. Averages are obtained as average value to the question “Num-
ber of hours spent in paid work per week”.
Table 2 shows the change in the amount of time devoted to paid and unpaid work
in Spain from 2002 to 2009, for men and for women. Clearly, the gender gap in
these activities has increased. Generally speaking, when men become unemployed
they do not take on extra household tasks, especially in Mediterranean countries,
because of deeply-entrenched and gender-based divisions of household labour. So,
when the onset of the economic crisis in 2007-2008 destroyed a large number of
jobs, the women who found themselves out of paid work devoted part of the extra
time they now had available to housework, while men in the same situation spent
more time on leisure activities.
Table 2. Time devoted to total work, Spain 2002-03 and 2009-10
Total work, mean hours per week Year 2002-03 Year 2009-10
Men 52.6 47.51
Women 56.92 53.84
Difference -4.32 -6.33

Source: Gimenez-Nadal and Sevilla (2014).
Public policies aimed at increasing men’s involvement in household duties would

thus help to equalise leisure time between men and women, especially in societies
with more traditional attitudes towards gender roles.
42
It is interesting to note that gender inequality in leisure time decreases as a country

becomes wealthier (Burda et al., 2013). Put simply, there are smaller differences in
the total time spent working in countries with a higher per capita GDP and thus gre-
ater equality in leisure time. Thus, economic development is associated with greater
gender equality in leisure time, and thus policies aimed at fostering development in
poorer countries would help to reduce such inequalities.
The gender difference in leisure time also varies between different groups in so-
ciety. Table 1 showed that mothers who work full-time still have less leisure time
than their male counterparts, even though the imbalance favouring men has de-
creased in recent decades. The fact that many women have to cope with work and
household responsibilities means they have less free time to rest and relax – and
thus are generally more stressed than men, as Figure 4 shows (with fewer women
reporting minimal stress from work-life balance issues than men in most of the
countries studied).
Figure 4. Little or no stress due to work-life balance issues

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Men Women
Source: European Quality of Life Survey 2011-2012. Percentages are obtained as the percentage of people repor-
ting “Little or no stress” to the item related to “Stress due to work-life balance issues”.
Several institutional factors affect people’s work-life balance, thus contributing to

gender inequality in leisure time. For instance, the availability of childcare services
for children under three and the percentage of a country’s GDP that is spent on fa-
mily/child benefits are factors that affect how much paid and unpaid work men and
women do, and thus the time left for leisure.
The percentage of GDP spent on such services is high in countries with low levels
of leisure inequality (such as Austria, Belgium and France), and comparatively low
in countries where there are relatively big gender differences (like Spain or Ireland).
Thus, increasing public expenditure on childcare/family policies may help to reduce
gender inequalities in leisure time.
43
To sum up: in highly-developed European countries characterised by high participa-

tion of women in the labour market and high expenditure on family-friendly policies,
gender inequality in leisure time is smaller than in medium- and low-income Euro-
pean countries, where the participation of women in the labour market and public
spending on family-related services are significantly lower.
Despite the improvements of recent decades, public investment in these areas (fo-
cusing mainly on working women with small children) is needed to reduce inequali-
ties in leisure time, and thus to enhance quality of life for all.
44
A holistic approach to the provision of care: a key ingredient for

economic independence
By Annelie Nordström
In Swedish, the expression ‘economic independence’ has different meanings depen-

ding on whether you are referring to a man or woman. An economically indepen-
dent man is so rich that he does not need a paid job. An economically independent
woman, on the other hand, has a job so that she can support herself. The language
reveals the persistent notion that men work and women do not.
At the heart of this is a major blind spot: the provision of care; the unpaid work
required to look after homes, children and old people. While women’s responsibility
for providing care often prevents them from being in paid employment, it has been a
prerequisite for men’s paid work. We need to understand this connection to identify
the changes required to enable both men and women to be economically indepen-
dent; to be in paid work and to support themselves.
European countries need sustainable systems where responsibility for providing
care can be combined with paid work. This is necessary both for the freedom of
individuals and to meet challenges such as an ageing population and labour shor-
tages. It is also one of the keys to getting Europe’s economic wheels turning again.
Low birth rates are a problem in several European countries today, with the lowest
rates in Portugal followed by Germany and Italy. These are countries that have de-
veloped a model in which the man in the family is the breadwinner and the woman
is responsible for providing care. Women in these countries have to choose between
being in paid work or having children. The low birth rates indicate that many decide
not to have children. This has consequences for both individuals and society as a
whole. The ageing population and looming labour shortages are two of Europe’s
greatest future challenges, and these will be reinforced if people feel that there are
obstacles to choosing a life with children.
Since women are at least as educated as men, the single breadwinner model has
also led to a plethora of highly educated housewives in Europe. This is an expensive
arrangement, both for society and for individual families. Society invests in the
education of people who then disappear from the labour market for a long period,
with the attendant high risk that their knowledge will become obsolete and they
will not be able to fulfil their full potential in their working lives. Employers will be
reluctant to employ or invest in women if they assume that they will leave work
as soon as they have children. The single breadwinner model also makes families
more vulnerable to the risk that the sole earner may be affected by unemployment
or illness. If all adults are actively involved in the labour market, both families and
society as a whole will have a more stable economy.
The EU objective of ensuring that women and men have equal opportunities to
be economically independent builds on this analysis. Important components of the
strategy for achieving this goal are to increase the employment rate among wo-
men, extend the provision of childcare and create a system in which all mothers and
fathers are entitled to parental insurance (maternity and paternal benefits), with at
least one month earmarked for each parent.
Between 2002 and 2008, the female employment rate in the EU increased from
45
58 to 63%. Since then, it has remained flat. The participation rate among men has
fallen since the 2008 financial crisis from 78 to 75%. The gap between women and
men has thus continued to decrease to some extent.
However, almost one-third of women who have a job work part-time, compared
with only 8% of men. This is partly due to women taking more responsibility for
household duties than men do. On average, working women in Europe spend 26
hours a week on unpaid care-giving, compared with nine hours for the average
working man.
The difference between the sexes has narrowed, but this is more due to women de-
voting less time to unpaid work than to men spending more time on it (in 2005, wo-
men spent 28.9 hours on unpaid work and men spent 8.5 hours). Women have, for
example, reduced the time they spend caring for children, which probably reflects
the EU’s efforts to extend the provision of childcare. The percentage of children in
childcare has increased, from 81% of those aged three and older in 2007 to 86%
in 2011 and from 26% of under-threes to 30%.
The trend is in the right direction, but it is slow and there are very significant diffe-
rences between countries. The reason for this, in my opinion, is a failure to take a
holistic approach to the provision of care. Attention is now being paid to this issue,
but the various elements do not tally. For example, how is childcare to be managed
when parental benefits end after eight months under the Parental Leave Directive if
there are only places in childcare once a child reaches the age of three?
Another important piece of the puzzle that has been missing from the analysis to
date is care for the elderly. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and De-
velopment (OECD) has shown that the more of a country’s public resources are
devoted to caring for the elderly, the more women aged 55-64 are in paid work.
The provision of care for the elderly, like childcare, makes it possible for those with
such responsibilities to have a job. In Sweden, the significance of care for the elderly
for gender equality became clear after the economic crisis in the 1990s, when re-
sources for this decreased relative to needs. More relatives had to take on greater
responsibility and the burden fell, above all, on the middle-aged daughters of el-
derly parents. These women were worn out, reduced their working hours or gave up
paid work completely. The Swedish example shows the clear connection between
the provision of care for the elderly and economic independence for women.
Another piece of the puzzle that is often overlooked is how tax systems and family
policies can be designed to support gender-equal economic independence. Several
European countries have tax systems and policies for supporting families that are
based on the single breadwinner model: for example, joint taxation of spouses’
incomes, tax deductions for housewives or allowances for child-raising. This crea-
tes economic incentives that conflict with efforts to foster gender-equal economic
independence and must ultimately be changed if this objective is to be achieved.
A third piece of the puzzle is the value assigned to the provision of paid care. This
needs to be upgraded to reflect the qualified work that it is. The quality of childcare
and care for the elderly is closely associated with staff conditions. Sufficient time
and continuity are needed to build up the relationships that good care requires. The
provision of paid care today is a sector dominated by women, so pay and conditions
in the caring occupations are also of great importance for enabling women to be
economically independent.
In several countries, mixed systems are now being created where support for the
single breadwinner model continues alongside new measures that make it easier
46
for citizens both to support themselves and to take responsibility for caring for
others. However, these have so far failed to have significant impact and stratified
societies are being created in which middle-class women achieve economic inde-
pendence, but the reforms have no effect on working-class women.
The EU institutions’ role in the drive for a more equal and gender-equal Europe is
not without problems. Different countries have different traditions and it is difficult
to implement reforms at EU level that can be widely accepted and have a serious
impact on traditional gender roles and attitudes towards family life.
One key area for action is to support investments in social infrastructure that make
it possible to combine paid work with care-giving responsibilities. Apart from in-
vestments in more childcare provision, the EU also needs to support investment in
care for the elderly. These investments are at least as important for Europe’s eco-
nomic growth as investments in physical infrastructure such as railways or digital
networks.
The European Commission should also begin analysing how the various pieces of
the tax and family policy puzzle fit together. Key EU statistics on employment ra-
tes, differences between women and men’s working hours, and the percentage of
children in childcare need to be supplemented by a holistic approach to the provision
of care. This does not need to be exactly the same in each country, but all countries
should be able to answer key questions about, for example, how the transition from
paying benefits to parents to stay at home with their children to providing those
children with a place in childcare works. Governments also need to consider whe-
ther the tax system and/or support provided for families conflicts with the drive for
gender-equal economic independence.
Box 4. Average time spent by women and men active on the labour
market on paid and unpaid work.
70
60
50
34
40
30 41
1
20
13
10 1
12 3
5
0
Women Men
Hours caring for children Hours doing housework

Hours caring for adults Hours of paid work
Sources: European Working Condition Survey 2010, Eurofound
47
Box 5. Elderly care and middle-aged women’s opportunities for paid

work
80
70
SE
Employment rate for women aged 55-64år
R² = 0.5749
60
50 FI
UK DK
PT DE
40
IE NL
CZ
30 FR
ES LU
AT BE
EL HU
20
IT
PL
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Middle-aged women’s gainful employment and public resources for elderly care as percentage of GDP in a
number of EU countries 2005-2007. Sources: EUROSTAT, OECD
Elderly care is a social infrastructure that must be included in analyses to

achieve gender-equal economic independence in Europe.
48
The challenge and opportunity of migration from a gender per-

spective
By Bridget Anderson
Everyone is talking about immigration. Globally, the story is one of unparalleled mo-
vement and huge demographic change driven by both international and rural-urban
migration. In Europe, fears of an overwhelming influx of the world’s poor and de-
sperate have contributed to turning the Mediterranean and certain border-crossing
points into graveyards. But the proportion of people who move internationally (ap-
proximately 3% of the world’s population) has long been stable. What has changed
are the meaning, significance and make-up of mobility.
A crucial development has been that women are no longer rendered invisible in
the migratory process. Their movement - as workers, as refugees, as partners,
dependants and students - is now firmly on the agenda. While this is often referred
to as the “feminisation of migration”, the fact is that women and girls have always
moved: what has been “feminised” is the debate about migration (Shrover and Mo-
loney, 2013).
Like any social process, migration is deeply gendered and women’s motivations,
constraints and opportunities for moving can differ in important ways from those
of men. The economic and social relationships that migration engenders for women
and men may also be differently shaped and experienced. This recognition is itself
an achievement in migration/asylum regimes, where gender was for decades ren-
dered invisible by the assumption that asylum-seekers and migrant workers were
men and dependant spouses were women.
The legal framework for the protection of international refugees was established at
the end of the Second World War, a time when the gendered implications of these
kind of policies was largely ignored. In the 1990s, this led to changes in asylum
regimes and attempts to make them more sensitive to violence against women
and gender-based persecution (UNHCR, 1995; UNHCR, 1997), and to mitigate insti-
tutionalised discrimination and gendered assumptions inherent in asylum decision
making procedures (Dumper, 2004).
Across Europe, women account for approximately one-third of asylum claims
(Asylum Aid, 2012), and recent years have seen the development of multiple in-
ternational and European standards and guidelines on gender and asylum. The
European Refugee Fund has undertaken a number of initiatives to facilitate gen-
der equality in the asylum process, and the European Refugee Legal Framework
acknowledges the existence of gender-related persecution and the importance of
countries having gender-sensitive processes.
Some EU member states have issued their own guidelines to help decision-makers
take account of the gender dimension of claims and in some (but not all) member
states, gendered forms of harm such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM ) can be
recognised as a form of persecution. As the Asylum Aid Annual Report 2012 stated:
“There is a common understanding that the refugee definition can encompass gen-
der-related asylum claims and that the purpose and object of the Refugee Conven-
tion require a gender-inclusive and gender-sensitive approach. However, there are
vast and worrying disparities in the way different EU States handle gender-related
asylum claims.”
49
However, importantly, female asylum seekers endure significant hardships imposed

by member states on asylum seekers more generally as well as gender-specific
difficulties. For example, many states do not give asylum seekers the right to work,
or only grant permission in exceptional circumstances (Wirth et al., 2014). This can
be particularly difficult for those with children to care for, driving people into exploi-
tative situations in the informal economy - which, for women, are likely to be paid
sex and paid domestic labour.
The migrant worker, like the asylum seeker, was long assumed to be male and the
role of women is still absent from debates on skilled labour migration, despite the
important contribution of highly skilled women to the health and education sectors
(Kofman, 2012).
One reason for this is that while skilled and educated women are often more likely
to emigrate than their male counterparts, they are less likely to enter receiving
countries through labour routes. There are also categorical and conceptual challen-
ges: ‘skills’ itself is a deeply gendered concept whose origins lie in the distinction
between the household work of women and the agriculture labour of slaves on the
one hand, and the work of citizens on the other (Anderson, 2013). Furthermore,
earnings are a key measurement of skill, both at member state and EU level. For
example, the European Blue Card - an EU-wide work permit for highly-skilled mi-
grants - requires the applicant to earn 1.5 times the average gross national salary.
Gender disparities in pay both inside and outside the EU mean that such earnings
requirements constrain women more than they do men.
In contrast to the invisibility of skilled female migrants, considerable attention has
been paid to the heavily-feminised and low-skilled care and domestic labour sec-
tors. The 2011 adoption of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention
189 on domestic workers, which includes protections for migrant domestic workers,
is a particular achievement. Some EU member states, including Germany and Italy,
have ratified this convention, but the UK was one of the few that failed to support
its adoption. One of the particular strengths of the convention is its integrated ap-
proach to both migrant and citizen domestic workers. These kinds of connections
are important, as domestic labour (paid and unpaid) is not purely a ‘migrant’ issue.
The causes and consequences of the denigration of domestic labour are startlin-
gly visible in the case of migrant domestic workers, but are by no means confined
to them. The employment of migrant women in different forms of care provision
across the EU is a consequence of social ideas, institutional pathways, EU mobi-
lity and welfare state forms, as well as family structures and ageing populations
(Williams 2014). Low wages and the poor conditions endured by migrant care and
domestic workers should not be read as simple consequences of discrimination -
though discrimination matters as well - but as the the outcomes of complex social
processes that link the mobility and labour of EU and non-EU women
Scholars have noted the heteronormative assumptions of some gendered analyses
of immigration (Luibheid, 2004) - the belief that heterosexuality is the norm and
that people fall into two distinct and complementary genders often associated with
different characteristics and roles. Some attempts have been made to challenge
this in asylum and family migration regimes. There has been a significant shift in
the policies governing family migration in several EU member states, with some
recognising same-sex partnerships, and long-term partners. There is also some
acknowledgment of the problem of dependent residency for partners and children,
with some countries introducing laws that permit continuing residence and the right
to work for victims of gender-based violence.
50
However, despite this apparently more liberal approach, in practice is it becoming

increasingly difficult for people to enter under the family route. For example, many
countries have introduced a minimum income requirement for sponsoring partners
and this again has particular consequences for women. In the UK, this threshold is
set at £18,600 meaning that 28% of male employees and 57% of female emplo-
yees do not earn enough to sponsor a partner and 72% of female employees in the
UK do not earn enough to sponsor a partner and children (Migration Observatory
2014). Thus gender pay gaps for citizens have implications for immigration and for
family rights.
Post-entry, life for migrant women in Europe is often still heavily constrained – as
indeed it is for migrant men. At the European level, there have been some excellent
statements of intent, including the 2014 European Parliament resolution on undo-
cumented women migrants in the EU.17 However, this has yet to be translated into
improvements in practice. There are important connections that remain to be forged
between these constraints and the challenges faced by black and ethnic minority
women citizens in Europe, including Roma. Furthermore, it can be particularly diffi-
cult for women to access citizenship because visa limitations make it difficult for the
‘low skilled’ to renew their permits for long enough to be eligible to apply.
This brief overview suggests that where progress had been made, it has tended
to be in areas associated with the vulnerability of migrant women and where the
confusion between “feminisation” and gendering of the debate brings its own chal-
lenges. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the take-up of anti-trafficking
policy, which, at a national level, typically gives women rights as victims and often
only if they agree to take action against a perpetrator. What Spivak called “saving
brown women from brown men” - whether from FGM, prostitution or honour kil-
lings - has given a humanitarian face to immigration policy even as immigration
policies themselves contribute to deaths and detention (Anderson, 2013; O’Connell
Davidson, 2008).
We are still working towards a gender perspective on migration that does not crea-
te hierarchies of oppression. Engaging with the particularities of migrant women’s
experiences at the same time as examining what they share with migrant men and
with citizen women offers the possibility of developing a new and genuinely inclu-
sive political practice.
17 European Parliament resolution of 4 February 2014 on undocumented women migrants in the Eu-
ropean Union available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-
TA-2014-0068+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
51
Unlocking the psychological keys to economic independence

By Marianne Bertrand
Women are less likely to participate in the workforce then men in virtually every
country around the world. In 2010 in the US, about 75% of women between 25
and 54 years old were in the labor force (compared to 90% of men); in other OECD
countries, the equivalent figure is 80% for women (compared to 92.5% for men).
This gender inequality in labor force participation is accompanied by even larger
gender disparity in earnings and occupational prestige among those employed.
Across the OECD, men are much more likely than women to hold higher earnings
managerial and professional jobs. While gender differences in educational achieve-
ment used to play a large role in explaining gender differences in economic success,
this is no longer the case today. In fact, what used to be an education deficit for
women has now turned into an education deficit for men in most of the developed
world. Rapidly aging nations face an urgent need to engage more women in the
labor market and make better use of women’s under-tapped and growing skill pool
if they want to insure their future economic success.
It is by now well accepted that one of the major (if not the major) hurdles towards
greater gender equality in the labour market are strong remaining imbalances in the
allocation of non-market work between the genders. Women remain the primary
provider of home production work, and the primary caregiver for young children and
elderly within their households. Differences in earnings trajectories between career-
oriented women and career-oriented men can be timed to the arrival a child. The
child penalty for professional women in the business, finance and legal sectors of
the economy appears particularly large as these sectors of the economy are cha-
racterized by long hours and inflexible schedules that are difficult to reconcile with
the need to also provide for the home or the family.
The European Union has been much more aggressive than the US in introducing
policies to address the remaining gender inequality in labour market outcomes.
Quotas for women in business have gained traction in Europe. In 2003, Norway was
the first country to pass a law requiring 40% representation of each gender on the
board of directors of publicly limited companies. Following Norway’s lead, Spain,
Iceland, Italy, Finland, France, and the Netherlands have all passed similar reforms.
In November 2013, the European parliament voted in favour of a proposed draft
law that would require 40% female board members in about 5,000 listed compa-
nies in the EU by 2020.
My own research on the Norwegian experience suggests that this particular policy
should not be viewed as a magic bullet. On the positive side, the policy did result in
more equal boards, not just in terms of its mechanical effect on the relative number
of men and women on the board, but also in terms of the relative competence of
male and female directors. Despite businesses’ main lobbying argument against
the policy being that they would not be able to find enough qualified women to
serve, the women appointed to the boards after the reform looked if anything more
qualified than the (very few) women that were serving before. The pay gap with
male counterparts on boards narrowed from about 38 percent to about 30 percent.
Moreover, female board members post-reform were actually better-educated than
the pre-reform cohort and had MBA degrees on par with the male board members
(Bertrand et al., 2014). On the other hand, we did not find much evidence that the
52
policy had any effects beyond its direct impact on board composition, and hence the
number of women affected ultimately remained extremely limited. We observed no
evidence of trickle-down of the reform to other top managerial positions in targeted
companies. Moreover the policy had no obvious impact on highly qualified women
whose qualifications mirror those of board members but who were not appointed
to boards. Finally, there is little evidence that the reform was accompanied by any
change in female enrollment in business education programs, or a convergence in
earnings trajectories between recent male and female recent graduates of such
programs.
Another EU policy focus has been towards addressing the central work-family con-
flict. It is quite likely that the increased generosity in parental leave and statutory
rights to part-time work in the EU relative to the US over the last quarter century
can explain why female labor participation in the US is now lagging behind that in
many European countries. What is less clear is whether such family-work balance
policies have resulted in better jobs for women. These policies may instead have
made employers more reluctant to hire women for higher-level positions because
they are unsure of the strength of commitment to the labor force these women
have, or made employers less willing to groom female employees for higher-level
positions because they cannot (or feel they cannot) afford to do without a top em-
ployee with hard to replace skills for the length of time of the generous parental
leave. So, while more generous work-family balance policies may have succeeded in
growing women’s labour force participation in Europe compared to the US, they may
also have resulted in a higher share of women working part-time and into low-level
occupations in Europe. Blau and Kahn (2013) present compelling evidence of such
possible adverse effects.
Achieving a more unambiguous success for such work-family balance policies will
require these benefits no longer being reserved for women, nor being perceived as
reserved for women. While the move in many countries away from maternity leave
towards parental and paternity leaves satisfies the first requirement, the true chal-
lenge lies in the second requirement. As long as strong social norms such as “men
work in the labor force and women provide for the home” or “a working mom cannot
have a warm relationship with her child” remain, work-family balance benefits for
which men or women are equally eligible will remain disproportionately taken up by
the woman, even if the woman has higher earnings or earnings potential than her
spouse. While economists tend to assume that social norms will simply adjust to
new economic realities (such as the current reality of women being more educated
than men and hence becoming the gender with the higher earnings potentials), the
reality is that social norms move slowly. Research has shown that survey measures
of the strength of the social representation of women as homemakers and men
as breadwinners are quite predictive of women’s labour force participation across
countries. In the US, while women’s gender role attitudes steadily became less
traditional (e.g. more and more men and women disagreeing with the notion that
husbands should be the breadwinners and wives should be the homemakers) until
the mid-1990s, this trend reversed in the mid-1990s despite a growing educational
advantage for women.
An important and exciting question is whether public policy can be designed to
speed up the changes in social norms that I believe will be crucial to achieve greater
gender equality in the labour market sooner than later. Some of the existing rese-
arch on the malleability of gender norms offers a pessimistic outlook. For example,
a study shows that ethnicities and countries whose ancestors practiced plough cul-
tivation in ancient times (which required more physical strength than shifting culti-
53
vation, and hence was less suited for female labor) have beliefs today that exhibit
greater gender inequality, as well as lower rates of female labor force participation.
But other research suggests much more malleability, and mechanisms for change
within a generation. For example, a study shows that men having grown up with
working mothers (because their fathers had been mobilized to serve during WW II)
are more likely to have working wives.
Policymakers looking into speeding up the weakening of gender norms may well
consider leveraging the school environment, and in particular what are highly in-
fluential early years of schooling in terms of development of preferences and be-
liefs, to either undo the conservative gender norms some kids are bringing to school
from their home, or reinforce the progressive norms other kids are being exposed
to in their home.
An education policy that actively tries to undo gender norms may have additional
benefits. Women have been shown to be less willing to take risk than men, to have
a dislike for very competitive environments, as well as a dislike for negotiating for
more for themselves. To the extent that higher status positions in the economy are
also those that require more risk taking and in a more cut-throat workplace, and to
the extent that promotions to these positions will not happen unless one asks, these
psychological traits may contribute to women’s under-representation in the upper
part of the income distribution. A lower tolerance for risk may also be a contribution
factor in explaining why women are much less likely to be entrepreneurs than men.
It is possible that gender norms are also responsible for these gender differences in
psychological attributes. Psychologists have shown that people expect women to be
docile, while they expect men to be confident and self-assertive. Some have argued
that a higher degree of risk aversion is viewed as the norm for females while part
of the male identity is to be risk-takers. These expectations could be part of socially
constructed gender norms, rather than a reflection on innate differences; behaving
according to these expectations may reflect a willingness to conform with what
is expected from one’s social category. Hence, policies that would weaken gender
norms might also reduce gender differences on these psychological traits, further
boosting women’s economic success and independence.
54
Gender equality in decision-making: going beyond quotas

By Lenita Freidenvall
Gender equality has been a key priority for the EU for the past five decades, and
continues to be so. Equality in decision-making was one of the six priority issues
identified by the European Commission in its strategy for equality between women
and men 2010-2015. However, while progress has been made, power still lies in
men’s hands. Women are outnumbered by men by an average of three to one in go-
vernments and national parliaments, and data collected by Commission in October
2013 shows that women only account for an average of 18% of top-level board
members in the largest publicly listed companies in the EU-28 and 3% of CEOs.
As noted by the Commission, at the current rate of progress it will take over 20
years to achieve parity in national parliaments and over 20 years to achieve gen-
der balance on company boards. Thus, while progress has been made, the pace of
change has been slow and the goals set may take generations to achieve. Also, if
one reflects on which groups of women are under-represented in decision-making
bodies, the picture looks even gloomier.
In this essay, I will discuss what the Commission could do to address these chal-
lenges to equality in decision-making and what the ultimate objective should be.
Given the EU-28’s increasingly complex social diversity and changing migration pat-
terns, internal differences among women and men in relation to equality need to
be addressed. To address the full range of gender equality concerns, discussions on
power and decision-making need to address multiple equality concerns. It no longer
makes sense to conceive of or pursue these matters in relation to gender alone. A
more dynamic and democratic model is needed, with both ‘norm critical’ and ‘inter-
sectional’ perspectives applied in the debate.
A ‘norm critical’ perspective can be defined as a way to scrutinise how norms result
in the inclusion of some people and the exclusion of others. An ‘intersectional’ per-
spective refers how structures such as gender, ethnicity, age, ability and sexuality
interact, subordinating some people while giving privileges to others. In order to
develop a more dynamic model of candidate selection, a combination of these two
approaches could offer a way forward.
A norm critical perspective
A norm critical perspective requires a new focus on gender equality and gender
equality policies. By asking the question “Who is considered to be ‘normal’?”, it focu-
ses not on what is perceived as different or deviant, but rather questions the norms
and power structures that foster perceptions of deviation. Looked at this way, it is
the norms and standards that must change, not those who deviate from them.
Applying a norm-critical perspective to gender equality policies shifts the focus of
attention to the norms and structures of power that foster perceptions that some pe-
ople are ‘different’, and the consequences of this. A norm-critical perspective differs
from a so-called tolerance or diversity (multicultural) perspective, where the objecti-
ve is to create an understanding of people who are discriminated against by focusing
on those who are ‘vulnerable’ and ‘in need of help’, thus overlooking the agents who
‘expose’ people to ‘suffering’, which is also likely to consolidate attitudes.
55
The purpose of applying a norm critical perspective is to make visible and problema-
tic and transform the beliefs and standards that form the basis for discrimination,
harassment and abusive treatment. The emphasis is on highlighting the privileges
enjoyed by those considered to fit into the ‘norm’ in society.
Intersectionality
It is well-known that inequalities do not only relate to gender differences. Age, natio-
nality, race, ethnicity, sexuality, functionality/ability and class also affect the oppor-
tunities and barriers people are exposed to in their daily lives. Factors like these not
only impact on inequalities at work, at home and in politics, but are also embedded
in the norms, values and attitudes that segregate, subordinate and marginalise pe-
ople perceived to deviate from the norm.
Intersectionality is a concept designed to highlight specific situations of oppression
created in the intersections of power relations based on, for instance, race, gender
and class (Hooks, 1981; Yuval Davis, 2005). An important starting point for this is
that peoples’ experiences, identities and opportunities are based on a variety of po-
sitions in society that cannot be understood in isolation from one another. Women
are therefore never ‘just’ women, and men are never ‘just’ men. As Collins puts it,
“viewing gender with a logic of intersectionality redefines it as a constellation of
ideas and social practices that are historically situated within and that mutually
construct multiple systems of oppression”. (Collins, 2000: 263).
The purpose of applying an intersectional perspective to gender equality is thus to
address the fact that differences among women (and men) related to age, ethnicity,
class, etc. may result in a plethora of different positions, including multiple margina-
lisation and inequalities for some and multiple privileges and equalities for others.
An intersectional perspective could help by identifying opportunities and challenges
that are not usually noted in analyses of gender equality. For instance, when we di-
scuss issues related to power and decision-making, such as political representation,
we not only need to pursue gender balance, but also to reflect on which women and
which men are included. Who are we actually talking about? Which group of people
are we drawing inferences from?
It is important to stress, however, that intersectionality is not about adding one kind
of inequality or oppression to another; rather, it deals with the interaction between
various structures. As pointed out by Choo and Ferree (2009), it means the perspec-
tives of ‘multiply-marginalised’ groups are included in analysis as well as the social
experiences of privileged groups, challenging the ‘universal’. Thus, an essential part
of an intersectional analysis, as emphasized by Borchorst and Teigen (2010: 19),
is to investigate “how oppression, subordination and privilege cut across different
systems of differentiation”.
Why should a norm-critical and intersectional perspective be included?
Norm-critical and intersectional perspectives contribute to developing gender equa-

lity politics and practices. They are also key tools in the pursuit of democracy: to
achieve gender equality, we need to create gender equality policies based on de-
mocratic principles.
Gender equality concerns all citizens in a society and all those living in a country.
Therefore, we always need to ask questions such as: which women are we talking
56
about? Which men are we talking about? Who is included in the descriptions, targets
and policies, and who is excluded? Who belongs to the ‘norm’ in society, thus being
perceived as ‘normal’ and part of ‘we’, and who does not, thus being seen as the
‘other’, and part of ‘them’? Whose needs will be satisfied by political means and
whose will not? What problems are to be solved? And, not to forget, who has the
privilege of defining the problems and solutions?
A norm-critical perspective highlights the importance of identifying where power lies:
who has the power to identity, formulate and interpret problems, and consequently
identify what is judged to be a legitimate and plausible solution. An intersectional
perspective reminds us that various discriminatory structures interplay in enabling
and conflicting ways, and that gender-related problems always are contextual.
How may a norm-critical and intersectional perspective be applied?
In order to achieve equality in power and decision-making, in political and economic

life, I suggest an integrated framework for studying gendered representation appli-
cable to any country, institution, political party or organization. A central component
of this is the way in which candidates are selected for decision-making positions. It
may also be used in the application of gender quotas.
In politics, candidate selection is one of the key roles played by political parties.
Although nomination procedures vary across countries and parties, they can nor-
mally be distinguished by features such as the degree of institutionalisation and of
centralization/decentralization. In most parties, a nomination committee is respon-
sible for selecting candidates from a pool of aspirants and for the composition of
draft party lists (or equivalent) for party members to decide upon at formal party
meetings. Thus, selectors function as gatekeepers or enablers of women’s repre-
sentation, and the stage at which they choose the candidates is the most critical for
getting women into office.
In this framework, the selectors need to ask four basic questions, two related to a
norm-critical perspective and two related to intersectionality:
1. Questions to be asked from a norm-critical perspective:
a) Who are ’We’? Who is considered to be normal/part of the norm? More

concretely, to what extent does the pool of candidates reflect the majority
group/normality in society (usually white, middle-aged, and male)?
b) Who is the ’other’? Who is not considered to be part of the norm? More
concretely, how can the pool of candidates better reflect the composition of
society in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, etc. and those groups of people
not perceived as naturally belonging to the majority group in society?
2. Questions to be asked from an intersectional perspective:
a) How many women are selected compared to men? To what extent has
gender balance been taken into in consideration in the composition of a
list? To what extent have gender quotas been applied to achieve gender
balance?
b) Which women (and men) have been selected? If quotas have been ad-
opted to secure an equal balance between women and men, which women
(and men) have been selected? How diverse are those who have been cho-
57
sen? In what ways could the composition of the list better reflect minority
groups?
The last two questions relate to the principle of ’always gender, but never gender
only’. By asking these questions, selectors would be required not only to consider
how many women are involved in decision-making, but also why certain segments
of the female population are proportionally represented and under-represented.
Also, by asking these questions, selectors would target and question the homoge-
neity among the women (and men) who are usually selected via systems of gender
quotas. Hence, this framework addresses the heterogeneity among women as a
group (and men as a group) and highlights the importance of making sure certain
groups do not fall between the cracks when focusing on issues of gender OR ethnic-
ity, and ensuring that issues relating to power and equal decision-making are not
only tackled with respect to women in majority groups.
Conclusion
There is no quick fix to the problem of inequality between women and men in de-
cision-making. To achieve gender equality, people’s different positions in life must
be addressed. Norm-critical and intersectional perspectives help us to reflect on
the gaps in all factors of privilege, as well as all factors of oppression. They also
contribute to an extent to a further dynamic of gender quotas. By going beyond
just requiring that women and men are equally represented in decision-making via
quotas, which is a goal in itself, the perspectives develop and strengthen the demo-
cratic principle that underpins gender quotas by asking “which women” and “which
men”? If candidate selection were to be based on these perspectives, the potential
for identifying multiple inequalities would improve and the pursuit of a more demo-
cratic and inclusive society would be enhanced.
58
Dignity, integrity and ending gender violence in the European

Union
By Andrea Krizsan
In 2014, the Fundamental Rights Agency published the most comprehensive EU

level survey on violence against women to date.
Based on 42,000 interviews conducted in all 28 EU member states, the report re-
veals alarmingly high levels of violence against women, with an average of one in
three European women experiencing physical and/or sexual violence since the age
of 15; one in every 10 experiencing some form of sexual violence; one in every 20
being raped; and one in every five experiencing physical and/or sexual violence from
a current or former partner.
Along with high levels of prevalence, the data also reveals very low levels of repor-
ting: only around one-third of partner-violence incidents were reported to either the
police or a victim support organisation. About a quarter of victims refrained from
reporting because they felt ashamed of what happened and up to 40% did not turn
to anyone for help, including friends or family.
The survey reveals interesting variations across Europe, with somewhat lower levels
of violence in Central European countries and more religious countries, and higher
levels in Scandinavian countries. Explanations for these variations are complex and
have to do primarily with awareness of violence against women in societies as a
well as the social acceptability of talking about, or remaining silent on, the existence
of such violence. Yet, importantly, the prevalence of violence is very high even in
countries at the lower end of the spectrum. In Catholic Poland, for example, more
than one in ten women had suffered violence in the family since the age of 15, over
one in three experienced psychological violence from a current or previous partner,
and one in three experienced sexual harassment. Policy responses to this level of
violation of women’s rights in EU member states are warranted.
Publication of the survey findings on the magnitude of the problem is an enormous
step forward in understanding violence against women in Europe, and creates a
solid basis for urgent action to launch comprehensive European-level policies to
tackle this. Indeed, this comprehensive collection of data can be seen as one of the
EU’s main achievements in this field in recent years. Beyond this, however, EU-level
policies addressing violence against women are either too general or fragmented in
scope and too narrowly framed.
While European ‘hard’ law has improved considerably since the Lisbon Treaty, it
nevertheless remains fragmented. European directives cover sexual harassment
(since 2002), human trafficking (since 2009), protection orders (2011) and victim
protection (2012), but none of these instruments cover violence against women
in more comprehensive terms. There is no European hard law covering forms of
violence against women beyond sexual harassment and trafficking, such as sexual
violence (except for the sexual exploitation and abuse of children), intimate partner
violence or stalking. No directive covers these forms of gender-based violence com-
prehensively by including protection, prevention, prosecution and partnership, as re-
quired by key international documents. Interventions remain sectoral: for example,
in the case of sexual harassment, the focus is limited to the labour market; Europe-
an protection order and victim protection directives focus on crime more generally,
59
with coverage of some forms of gender-based violence, but not specific to those;
and the European protection order has relevance particularly for intimate partner
violence, but not for other forms.
This lack of hard law on violence against women is often justified on the basis that
there are no legal grounds for the EU to regulate in this area. The first comprehen-
sive study to examine this was the ‘Feasibility study to assess the possibilities,
opportunities and needs to standardise national legislation on violence against wo-
men, violence against children and sexual orientation violence’ (2010), which gave
a narrow interpretation of EU competences in this respect and concluded that there
were no legal grounds for addressing violence against women.
More recent reports question this approach and argue for the possibility of an exten-
ded interpretation of EU competences that would allow violence against women to
be covered more generally within EU policies. Benlolo-Carabot et al. (2013) argue
for including this under Article 19.2 of the TFEU on gender discrimination or even-
tually for extending Article 83.1 to cover more forms of gender-based violence, such
as intimate partner violence, rape or stalking.
In her study on legal perspectives for action at EU level Walby (2013), argues that
is it possible to give more extensive interpretations of both procedural (82) and
substantive (83) criminal law treaty instruments, as well as a proactive interpreta-
tion of Article 19 on gender discrimination, making it possible to regulate forms of
violence against women not currently covered. Walby also argues that adopting a
‘violence against women’ directive would help improve understanding of the EU’s
competences in this field as well as their limitations.
Furthermore, the recent European Parliament Resolution on this issue asked the Eu-
ropean Commission to propose measures to promote and support member states’
actions aimed at preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG) by the end
of 2014. The Resolution also suggested introducing a specific definition of violence
against women and accession of the EU to the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Conven-
tion, the most progressive international instrument applicable to violence against
women and domestic violence to date.
While legal interpretation debates are ongoing, there is less of a constraint on EU
strategy documents.
The Commission’s European Strategy for Equality between Women and Men 2010-
2015 devotes a specific chapter to gender-based violence, which starts by recogni-
sing this to include domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape and sexual violence
during conflict, and harmful traditional practices; and proposes the adoption of an
EU-wide strategy on combating violence against women, along the lines of the
Stockholm Programme. However, when it comes to specific references within the
chapter, the main focus is on female genital mutilation (FGM), a relatively limited
form of violence against women in Europe. The same tendency is manifested in the
choice of the main policy sector to be targeted: asylum policy. While both FGM and
asylum policy are important fields for intervention, focusing on these in the EU’s
five-year strategy sends the message that core forms of violence against women
are being sidelined, as well as the many other sectors that may be crucial for inter-
vention such as law enforcement, judiciary or victim support.
The activities of the European Institute of Gender Equality (EIGE) in the field of
data and good practice collection and the FRA survey on violence against women
go beyond the limited and fragmented approach taken in EU laws and policies.
60
Both agencies have taken important steps towards a comprehensive EU approach

towards this issue. Along with the proactive role of the European Parliament’s Wo-
men’s Right and Gender Equality (FEMM) Committee, they may be triggers for a new
EU-level approach towards violence against women that is facts-based and targets
identified gaps in the response to date. EU accession to the Istanbul Convention
would also facilitate the development of the legal and policy framework on violence
against women at European level.
The lack of adequate policy and interventions on this issue is problematic for several
reasons. Inaction entails major costs to European society and economy, estimated
at 226 billion euro in 2011 by Walby (2013) - 45 billion in the provision of services,
24 billion in lost economic output, and 158 billion in victims’ pain and suffering).
Inaction also has consequences for the EU as a political and legal entity. Academic
research, international mapping exercises, the EIGE’s work and FRA’s newly-released
data clearly show the unevenness of protection available to victims of violence
against women in different member states. Given that violence against women is a
violation of gender equality as well as of human rights such as dignity and integrity,
the lack of European protection leaves some EU citizens less protected than others.
While a complete levelling of policy models might not be desirable for several rea-
sons, the expressive power of the law conveyed by a comprehensive EU policy could
fuel policy progress and learning beyond the terms of a European directive (Benlolo-
Carabot et al., 2013).
Finally, an important political reason for adopting a comprehensive European po-
licy on violence against women is the fact that EU norms lag behind international
norms. Violence against women is a key priority for the Beijing Platform for Action
and for the Council of Europe through its Istanbul Convention, the most important
international platforms. While gender equality is a grounding principle of the EU,
the lack of a cohesive policy or even an identifiable EU-level definition of violence
against women, other than by reference to other international actors, is detrimental
to EU’s identity as a political entity and international actor. Moreover, given its role
as a major development aid actor, it risks being accused of double standards when
insisting on violence against women norms in the development context.
EU-level intervention in this area should follow three main principles, inspired by
international norms and global good practices. First, women’s rights and gender
equality should be kept at its core and violence against women as a form of gender
discrimination must be at the heart of a comprehensive policy approach. This will
establish the link and foster coherence between interventions in different policy
areas. A frequent problem with measures to address different forms of violence
against women is that they frame the problem in gender-neutral ways, thus risking
co-optation by other policy priorities and losing sight of the larger structural pro-
blems. This should be avoided.
Secondly, intervention should be comprehensive and cover the four Ps: protection of
victims; prosecution of perpetrators; prevention of violence; and participation of wo-
men’s rights advocates. The need to go beyond criminal intervention has been repe-
atedly demonstrated: the protection, empowerment and social inclusion of victims
are key components of an effective approach. Together with far-reaching protection
elements such as labour market integration of victims, adequate prevention inter-
ventions will secure the structural transformation needed to address gender ine-
quality, the main problem behind violence against women. Participation of women’s
rights advocates in the policy design, monitoring and implementation of protection,
prevention and prosecution should be an organising principle for all measures to
61
tackle this issue across the EU, supported both by including the principle in European
policy and by giving women’s rights advocates access to European funding schemes
such as Structural Funds.
Thirdly, Europe’s approach should be multi-sectoral and coordinated across sec-
tors. Interventions can only be effective if they are mainstreamed across policy
areas including crime, social, housing, education, labour, healthcare, family, child
protection and external policy, to mention the most important. Such multi-sectoral
interventions require coordination to ensure policy cohesion and complementarity,
and that procedures remain victim-centred and secondary victimisation is avoided.
Coordination at European, national and local levels should be key principles taken
up in the new European policy on violence against women.
The EU has come a long way in this area over the last five years, but not far enough.
Developing a comprehensive new European policy to tackle violence against wo-
men, including the hard law required, would be beneficial for EU citizens as well as
for European identity.
62
Gendered violence: a cause and a consequence of inequality

By Nancy Lombard
“Violence against women is not the result of random, individual acts of miscon-
duct, but rather is deeply rooted in structural relationships of inequality between
women and men” (United Nations, 2006)
Gendered violence is rooted in the structural inequalities between men and women.
It is both a cause and consequence of gender inequality. It incorporates a range
of crimes and behaviours including physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and
economic abuse. It takes many forms and can involve a myriad of behaviours and a
multitude of consequences, physical injuries, emotional abuse, personal and sexual
violations or material deprivations (Lombard, 2015).
The ENEGE report (2013) provided an online tool to illustrate how protection ser-
vices across the EU respond to victims of gender-based violence (GBV). It lists five
types of GBV: sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment, intimate partner violence
and stalking. Skinner et al. (2005) maintain that ‘gender violence’ is a more inclu-
sive term than [men’s] violence against women, as the definition does not restrict
itself to women, but engages with the theoretical connection between violence and
gender relations, thus including gay and lesbian people, children and young people.
Gender is significant because men’s violence is so often treated as gender-neutral
through terms such as ‘spousal abuse’, ‘date rape’, ‘sexual harassment’, ‘marital
rape’, ‘battery’ and ‘child sexual abuse’ (Hague and Malos, 1998). Gender is impor-
tant in any analysis of violence because men and women use violence in different
ways and have different motives for doing so (Hester, 2009).
The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women - which was adopted in 1979, became an international treaty in
1981 and was ratified by almost 100 nations by 1989 - provides a definition of
gender-based abuse, calling it: “Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or
is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women,
including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether
occurring in public or in private life.”
Article 2 of this declaration identifies three areas in which physical, sexual and psy-
chological violence commonly takes place:
In the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household,
dowry related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional
practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploi-
tation.
Within the general community, including rape; sexual abuse; sexual harassment and
intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere; trafficking in women;
and forced prostitution.
Perpetrated or condoned by the state, wherever it occurs.
From a private problem to a public issue
The family is the most violent group in society: you are more likely to get killed,
injured or physically attacked in your own home by someone you are related to
63
than in any other social context (Gelles, 1979). Unlike men, who are more likely to
be victims of assaults and violence by strangers, women and children are attacked,
beaten, raped and killed by their family and partners (Department of Health, 2005);
by men known to them.
Feminism seized the slogan ‘the personal is political’ to demonstrate that experien-
ces personal to individuals were also social, in terms of the power relations they
engendered. The term ‘private’ related not only to individuals, but also to the space
they occupied. Feminists aimed to deconstruct the highly gendered nature of this
space, as well the ethnic and class divides it reproduces (Edwards and Ribbens,
1998; Hill Collins, 1990).
In second-wave feminism, the initial focus was on making women more visible,
bringing the private into the public and political spheres. ‘Calling out’ men’s violence
against women was an example of this. However, the spheres remained unchanged,
which meant challenging women’s positions and limitations within them, which sim-
ply reinforced the rigid dichotomies of public/private (Elshtain, 1981). It also meant
that the spheres were seen as the main barriers to personal and social equality,
whereas it was the significance and, in particular, the value attributed to them that
needed to be challenged (Rosaldo et al 1974; Imray and Middleton, 1983).
Until the 1980s, men’s violence against women was judged a ‘private’ issue. It of-
ten occurred in the ‘private’ space of the home, between individuals in a ‘private’
relationship, was hidden by those involved and rarely discussed, and crucially was
judged to be a ‘private’ matter by the police. Initially, it was important for femini-
sm to emulate the ‘private’ label to highlight all the incongruities associated with
violence taking place within this sphere, including the lack of statutory help and
support available and the myth of the home as a safe haven. However, 40 years on,
we need to stop hiding behind this dichotomous term.
Women and children still believe that public places are more dangerous than the
sanctity of their home and that strangers pose a greater threat than men who are
known to them. The perpetuation of these stereotypes encourages women to police
their own behaviour and reinforces the dichotomy of the public and private spheres,
as well as the sanctity associated with the latter. It also leads to hierarchies of vio-
lence where some violence (usually by a stranger and seen in public) is judged as
more serious or is more likely to be validated officially (Lombard, 2014).
Wider society may often believe that women are complicit in their own victimisation,
particularly if they are viewed as transgressing traditional gender roles. Details such
as a woman’s choice of dress, the decisions she takes (to walk home alone, hitchhi-
ke, invite a man back to her home) and her social standing (married, single mother,
divorced, in a relationship with the man who raped her) have all been brought to a
jury’s attention by judges who deemed them relevant to whether or not a defendant
committed rape (Lees, 1992). Myths around women’s alleged complicity in their
own experiences of violence still need to be challenged.
It is by controlling of women’s behaviour, actions and activities that men are able to
oppress, subordinate and ‘keep them in their place’ (Mooney, 2000). Defining men
as the protectors of women also reinforces gendered notions and gets women into
arguably more dangerous situations. Indeed, Stanko (1990) argues that “the very
people women turn to for protection are the ones who pose the greatest danger”, a
view echoed by Kelly (1988): “Whilst not all women live in constant fear, many of
women’s routine decisions and behaviours are almost automatic measures taken to
protect themselves from potential sexual violence.”
64
Women are at greater risk from men known to them, but this ‘fact’ cannot detract
from the seriousness of the offence. Theories of violence against women need to
acknowledge that it can happen in public places as well as private, and that more
than a quarter of incidents occur between intimates who have never lived together
(Walby and Allen, 2004). The onus of the violent act needs to rest solely on the
perpetrator and not on what the woman could or should have done to prevent the
violence.
In 2011, the Council of Europe adopted ‘The Convention on Preventing and Comba-
ting Violence against Women and Domestic Violence’ (Istanbul Convention), which
makes it clear that violence against women and domestic violence is not a private
matter; states have an obligation to prevent violence, protect victims and punish the
perpetrators. By accepting the Convention, governments are compelled to change
or bring in new laws, introduce and implement practical measures such as helplines
and shelters, and assign adequate resources to tackle violence against women and
domestic violence effectively.
Most European countries (even prior to signing up to the convention and including
those who have not, such as the UK) have focused on a framework of protection,
provision and prevention, with varying degrees of success. How they define the
violence in the first place can determine their response to it. Scotland is the only
country in the UK with a gendered definition of domestic abuse, and prevention
work undertaken there seeks to reduce the gender inequality seen as causing men’s
violence against women; whereas in Wales, with its gender neutral definition and
framing of domestic violence as a criminal justice issue, prevention work primarily
focuses on reducing crime (Charles & Mackay, 2013).
It needs to be recognised that (feminist-inspired) advances have been made in
policy and provision, and that media and educational campaigns have also raised
awareness of this issue in society. As Kelly remarks, the “creation of knowledge has,
therefore, given social recognition to hidden and silenced experiences”. “Making visi-
ble what was invisible, defining as unacceptable what was acceptable and insisting
what was naturalised is problematic” (Kelly, 1988: 139) has been an important part
of this process. It enables women to name, understand and challenge what happe-
ned to them, moving the private into the public domain and shifting the boundaries
of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Challenging limited gender identities: promoting gender equality
A study carried out by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2014, based
on interviews with 42,000 women across the 28 EU’s member states, revealed
extensive abuse that goes unreported. In its recommendations, it looked at solutions
going beyond criminal law, stressing the need to examine and challenge other areas
of their lives where women experience inequality.
Research has found that when gender divisions and stereotypes are perpetuated,
young people are less likely to challenge men’s violence against women (McCar-
ry, 2010; Lombard, 2013, 2014). Whilst we can teach children that all violence is
wrong, we also need to scrutinise how we may be limiting what children can be or
become. Boys and girls are continuously told that they are ‘different’ from each
other, or this is implied by putting them in different lines at school; having gender
specific sports, toys or activities; speaking to them in different ways; or expecting
different things from them. We also need to challenge the normalisation of violence.
We must contest the dynamics in heterosexual relationships where men’s power
65
over women is naturalised, normalised and used as a justification for the violence
(McCarry and Lombard, forthcoming 2015).
Promoting gender equality would mean that violence against women is no longer
normalised or endorsed by gendered stereotypes. As such, gender segregation and
division must end, and all members of society need to challenge all forms of violen-
ce against women. Until they do so, women will never achieve equal status, which
is the main barrier to preventing gendered violence.
Box 6. The example of Scotland
Scotland has recognised the social problem of domestic abuse within the con-
tinuum of violence against women as a form of gender-based violence. In so
doing, it explicitly acknowledges domestic abuse as an issue which dispropor-
tionately affects women, is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men and is asso-
ciated with long-held cultural assumptions about the roles of men and women
in society. In 2014, Scotland updated its Violence Against Women Strategy,
retaining its gendered approach. Examples of good practice include:
Protection: In 2013, the Chief Constable made domestic abuse one of three
top priorities for the new national police force, recognising that it constituted
one-third of all violent crime in Scotland and sending out a clear message to
perpetrators, victims and fellow officers.
Provision: Police officers in Scotland officers who work on rape, sexual assault
or domestic abuse are now being trained in understanding its complexities,
to improve experiences of women reporting to them. A domestic abuse advo-
cacy service works alongside the police and domestic abuse courts to reduce
victimisation by assessing risks and increasing the safety of clients at risk of
harm from partners or ex-partners, and NGOs work in partnership with the
government to adapt, develop and pilot a multi-agency approach which en-
courages mothers and children to work together towards recovery from their
experiences of abuse. All users of mental health, maternity, addiction, sexual
and reproductive health, accident and emergency, and primary care services
are now routinely asked about their experience of domestic abuse.
Prevention: A range of initiatives have been launched to involve communities
in prevention; raise awareness and challenge myths about rape; and run edu-
cational programmes that challenge young people to confront their own and
others’ role in perpetuating and sustaining gender-based violence. A gender
equality training programme for primary school teachers is currently in it pilot
phase.
66
PART 3: Governance and communication for gender equality
Part III: Governance and

communication for gender
equality
Gender equality governance and tools: time to move up a gear

By Birgitta Aseskog
Over the past five decades, the EU has built a solid framework for the promotion of
equality between women and men. Gender equality, as a value and a goal, is enshri-
ned in the Treaty as well as a commitment to gender mainstreaming.18 Multiannual
strategies for the promotion of gender equality, annual reporting and institutional
mechanisms at EU and national level are also in place.
When the programming period of the current strategy ends in 2015, the EU will
have an opportunity to take stock of gender equality policies so far and, building on
experience, reinforce the commitment to promote gender equality in a new strategy
post-2015.
Since 2010, new challenges have emerged. The global economic crisis has resulted
in austerity policies, with cuts in many member states’ public budgets resulting in
a downgrading of gender equality and/or gender mainstreaming structures. Institu-
tional structures/bodies supporting gender equality have been abolished or merged
with other institutions in some countries and deep cuts are the reality for others.
There is also a trend towards replacing independent bodies for protection against
discrimination on grounds of sex by bodies for protection against discrimination
on various grounds. In some countries, policy units have been moved to units/de-
partments on diversity or human rights issues, which risks marginalising gender
equality as a political goal and changing policies from structural measures to tackle
gender gaps and inequality to equal treatment policies; a legalistic, individualistic
approach focusing on protection from sex discrimination (EIGE, 2014).
At EU level, the Group of European Commissioners on Equal Opportunities coordi-
nating gender mainstreaming and equality policies was dismantled in 2010 when
a new Commission took office. The status of the annual progress report was also
reduced from a political report to the Spring European Council to a Commission staff
working document. This can be seen as a downgrading of gender mainstreaming,
since a clear prerequisite for gender mainstreaming is involvement and accountabi-
lity at the top level in an organisation.
However, the Commission´s annual reports for 2013 and 2014 (European Com-
18 Treaty of the European Union (2009), Article 2 and 3, Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, Article 8.
67
mission, 2014; 2015) show some progress in most of the 2010-2015 Strategy’s
priority areas.19 It also shows that it will take between 20 and 70 years to reach the
targets at the current rate of change. The conclusion is obvious: both the EU and
its member states need new clear strategies, targets and top-level commitment to
improve and accelerate progress towards gender equality.
Two horizontal areas require specific attention in the Commission´s post-2015 stra-
tegy - the need to: (1) examine and clearly explain the relationship and differences
between discrimination/equal treatment policies and proactive gender equality po-
licies/gender mainstreaming; and (2) go from words to action and fully implement
gender mainstreaming.
The need to examine and clearly explain the relationship and differences between
discrimination/equal treatment policies and proactive gender equality policies/gen-
der mainstreaming.
The tendency to merge all grounds of discrimination within the tasks of one inde-
pendent body for promoting equal treatment can be seen as an efficient strategy
to address both the heterogeneity of women and men and multiple discrimination.
But it too often results in a reduction in the existing institutional capacity for gender
equality policies and a tendency to view gender equality as a human right requiring
legal, judicial measures that address discrimination at an individual level, and more
seldom as a structural issue that requires a political approach to tackle gender gaps
and transform policies with a view to achieving gender equality.
Economic pressure and budget cuts have contributed to this shift of policies from a
structural to a more individualistic approach which downgrades gender equality as
a political goal and undermines gender mainstreaming.
The post-2015 strategy should therefore address this development, which is con-
fusing and unclear. Initiatives to examine and clearly explain the relationship and
differences between discrimination/equal treatment policies on the one hand, and
proactive gender equality policies/gender mainstreaming on the other, would be
welcome. The aim should be to regain a broad perspective on equality policies and
a clear understanding among member states and EU institutions of how to fight
inequality.
A renewed commitment to promote gender equality by strengthening and monito-
ring of equal treatment/discrimination legislation, and through a clear focus on en-
hancing gender equality policies through special measures and a well-informed im-
plementation of gender mainstreaming, is imperative to step up the pace to achieve
the Treaty goal.20
19 Strategy for equality between women and men 2012-2015. COM(2010) 491 final, SEC(2010)
1079 and SEC(2010) 1080.
20 Treaty of the European Union (2009), Article 2 and 3
68
Box 7. Integration of a gender perspective into integration policy (a

Swedish case)
National authorities and municipalities manage issues targeting individuals

(employees and/or citizens). All enjoy the right to equal treatment under EU
and national legislation on discrimination, which must be guaranteed by the
authorities. A municipality or a national authority must also manage its ope-
rational tasks. These can, for example, include integration policy, which is not
only about fighting discrimination but also about pursuing policies to promote
the integration of individuals and groups in society. To contribute to achie-
ving national goals for gender equality (equality in decision-making, economic
equality, equal distribution of unpaid housework and provision of care and to
end men´s violence against women)21, the authorities must integrate a gen-
der equality perspective into all policy initiatives. They need to take a broad
perspective on gender equality when integrating gender equality into integra-
tion policy, have an intersectional perspective on discrimination legislation and
mainstream gender into all integration policy initiatives.
From words to action and the full implementation of gender mainstreaming.
One of the priorities in the forthcoming EU strategy should be a plan/platform for

thorough implementation of gender mainstreaming in the Commission, building on
the experience of almost 20 years and providing an inspiration and a role model for
member states.
Gender mainstreaming can be defined as the systematic integration of a gender
perspective into all policies and programmes - from preparation through to design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation - with a view to achieve gender equality
goals.
Since the United Nations’ World conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the Com-
mission has supported and collaborated with member states on promoting and
developing gender mainstreaming as a strategy. It launched the first Communica-
tion on gender mainstreaming in 1996, followed by guidelines for implementation.
Political commitment was manifested in the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) and today,
Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides the legal
basis for action. This political commitment is reaffirmed in the Women´s Charter22
and the European Pact for Gender Equality 2011-2020.23
The Commission has fostered the dual approach - gender mainstreaming and spe-
cific measures - to enhance equality between women and men. Over the years,
institutional mechanisms, methods and tools for implementing gender mainstrea-
ming have been developed. The EU has put high priority on gender mainstreaming
in programmes (e.g. the Structural Funds, Progress, the Framework Programmes for
research) and in strategies (e.g. the Strategy for Equality between Women and Men
21 See for example the Swedish Government dedicated website: http://www.government.se/sb/
d/4096/a/125215
22 Communication from the Commission of 5 March 2010 – A Strengthened Commitment to Equality
between Women and Men (COM (2010) 78 final).
23 Council of the European Union New European Pact for Equality between Women and Men for the
period 2011 - 2020 (7349/11).
69
2010-2015), which has contributed to a better understanding of the concept both

within EU institutions and in member states. The Commission has also supported
the national development of gender mainstreaming strategies financially through
Progress.24
An Inter-service Group on equality between women and men (ISG) was set up in
1995 as a specific coordination structure for achieving the Commission’s gender
equality policy objectives. Today, it serves as a forum for exchanging information
and best practice, and works towards more effective gender mainstreaming. Gender
training and gender impact assessment are examples of tools that the Commission
uses to implement gender mainstreaming. Gender equality analyses are performed
as part of the routine impact assessments of proposals: the guidelines include a
number of questions on equality, equal treatment and discrimination which officials
should consider. However, there is no monitoring of the frequency or nature of gen-
der equality issues in impact assessments.25
The creation of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has increased the
EU’s capacity for gender mainstreaming, as it collects and analyses data, develops
models and tools, and identifies and disseminates good practice.26
Despite all this, the implementation of gender mainstreaming is still fragmented
and incoherent in the EU institutions and in member states. There is no systematic
planning of how to enforce implementation of gender mainstreaming in the Com-
mission, capacity-building initiatives are scarce and only a few Directorates-General
(DGs) offer policy-specific training. Accountability is unclear and weak, as the Com-
mission does not monitor or evaluate the results of initiatives in the DGs - the an-
nual report only lists the actions they have taken.
Against this backdrop, the Commission should use the momentum of a new leader-
ship team and the preparation of a new equality strategy for 2015-2020 to initiate
systematic work on enforcing the implementation of gender mainstreaming in all
policy fields.
A project could be launched within the framework of the new strategy encompas-
sing, for example, a plan/platform for gender mainstreaming in the Commission, a
high-level steering group to ensure political commitment, a help desk of gender ex-
perts tasked with providing gender training directed at target groups and supporting
the ISG in developing methods and tools (e.g. gender impact assessment, gender
budgeting, monitoring and evaluation). The EIGE’s expertise and capacity should be
fully utilized, with the gender equality index27 (GEI) and underpinning datasets used,
for example, to facilitate the task of monitoring progress and evaluating the project.
This would contribute to taking gender mainstreaming forward, and would deliver
consistent integration of a gender perspective into the Commission’s main policy
processes and thus provide well-informed policy making, targeting both women and
men. Full implementation of gender mainstreaming would not raise the costs but
rather enhance the quality of political decisions - an asset in a post-crisis society.
24 Now replaced by the new Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme.
25 Mid-term review of the Strategy for equality between women and men (2010-2015) SWD(2010)
339 final
26 See http://eige.europa.eu/
27 See http://eige.europa.eu/content/gender-equality-index
70
Box 8. Swedish government´s 2011 platform for gender mainstream-

ing: 5 strands28
1. A strategy for gender mainstreaming in the Government Offices for 2012-

2015: the aim is to provide the government with the best possible condi-
tions to ensure a gender equality dimension in all areas of policy. It covers
all decision-making processes, but identifies a number of key processes
that are given special priority.
2. A development programme for government agencies: 18 agencies have
been tasked with drawing up a plan for gender mainstreaming. Selected
agencies will showcase good practice and lessons learned about how
gender mainstreaming in central government operations can be con-
ducted effectively and sustainably. The Swedish Secretariat for Gender
Research at the University of Gothenburg has been tasked with suppor-
ting the agencies concerned via the portal www.includegender.org.
3. Support for special gender equality experts who are employed by the
county administrative boards to help them strengthen the conditions to
enable the implementation of the national gender equality goals at re-
gional level.
4. Quality assurance of the development of gender mainstreaming in mu-
nicipalities and county councils within the framework of the Sustainable
Gender Equality programme. An important part of the government’s in-
vestment in this area is that experiences gained from the programme are
spread and serve as a knowledge base.
5. To gather and spread knowledge and experience about methods, models
and interactive tools to simplify and quality assure gender mainstrea-
ming efforts (www.includegender.org ).
28 See http://www.government.se/sb/d/4096/a/171700
71
Gender equality governance and tools: the need for renewed fo-
cus and a clear vision
By Johanna Kantola
The EU has an impressive repertoire and range of tools at its disposal for the gover-
nance of gender equality policy.
Its anti-discrimination law – a wide range of gender directives – now reach beyond
the labour market and cover issues such as sexual harassment, and goods and ser-
vices. It endorses positive action that can potentially correct the historical disadvan-
tages women have suffered from. Many EU documents mention gender mainstrea-
ming as a central governance strategy and call for gender to be taken into account
in a number of different fields. The EU’s action programmes on gender equality are
used to endorse key aspects of the policy. Finally, the EU not only generates words
and produces documents, but also provides money through various funding sche-
mes.
Sophie Jacquot (2015) has described the formulation of these five pillars as a phase
of professionalisation and normalisation of gender equality governance in the EU
that lasted from the late 1990s until the 2000s, with gender equality policy resting
on these different mechanisms.
Indeed, practical examples from member states illustrate that it is necessary to
strike a balance between various tools in gender equality policy. For example, the
Nordic countries have benefited from the EU’s anti-discrimination approach, the
southern European countries from funding and soft law in reconciling work and
family life, and the UK from positive action. In this way, the EU gender governance
and tools have strengthened those aspects of national policy that may otherwise
have been neglected.
At the same time, the most recent scholarly assessments of the state of EU gover-
nance of gender policy are pessimistic.29 They suggest, in a nutshell, that each of
the dimensions of EU gender policy governance – anti-discrimination law, positive
action, gender mainstreaming, action programmes and funding – has been scaled
down, downsized and marginalised over the past decade. This has not always been
intentional; nor is it only related to the current economic crisis and the hard times
the EU is in. However, combined with a lack of a clear vision on the governance and
tools for gender equality, the effects of this downward spiral are potentially detri-
mental to gender equality.
At the same time, the economic crisis is resulting in austerity measures across
policy areas in member states that are traditionally important for gender equality
(social, welfare, pensions, health care etc.). In addition, the governance tools that
the EU is using to combat the financial and economic crisis have not been gender
mainstreamed (pointing in itself to the weak position of gender mainstreaming in
the EU). Market-based policies are central, which in turn signifies that less attention
is being paid to promoting gender equality as a value in such.
EU anti-discrimination law has been developed in various gender directives that
now cover equal pay equal pay, access to employment, training, working conditions,
29 See Mac Rae and Weiner (2014); Jacquot (2015).
72
social security, maternity and parental leave, and part-time work. The 2004 Equal
Treatment Directive famously extended the reach of these directives to access to,
and the provision of, goods and services. Directives have also been used in other
areas crucial for gender equality, such as anti-discrimination on the basis of other
inequalities (race and ethnicity, sexuality, age, religion and belief, disability), sexual
harassment and trafficking. In other key areas, such as gender violence, this tool has
not been used so far.
On the plus side are the increased role of the European Parliament in the legislative
process, which has enhanced the progressive gender content of the directives, and
the fact that directives offer clear legislative measuring sticks which can be used to
hold member states accountable for their correct implementation. Yet it is precisely
in the transposition and implementation phase that directives face resistance from
the member states. The use of this tool has also been undermined by the crisis,
with a number of directives stalled in the Council, including the 2010 proposal for a
new maternity leave directive (92/85/EEC) and the 2008 proposal for a directive on
equal treatment of people irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation.
The anti-discrimination framework is famously complemented in the EU with the
possibility to take positive action in the labour market in favour of the under-repre-
sented sex. Although the path to positive action has not been easy – with contra-
dictory court rulings in the 1990s – its position is now confirmed in EU law. Recent
years have seen renewed interest in this governance tool, with plans to introduce
company board quotas (a proposed directive aimed at ensuring women account
for 40% of board members in listed companies and public enterprises), although in
terms of overall gender policy, critics have questioned the wider benefits of a mea-
sure that targets a group of women who are already privileged.
The third governance tool - gender mainstreaming - widened the scope of gender
policy to all EU policy-making without being restricted by budgetary or competence
issues. Again, implementation of this principle has faced a number of challenges
both within EU institutional structures and policy-making, and in the member sta-
tes. The soft governance approach taken towards gender mainstreaming has faced
the challenges of a soft approach in general. Most significantly, recent years have
witnessed the disappearance and weakening of gender mainstreaming provisions
from many important EU policy documents, such as the Europe 2020 strategy (in
contrast to the previous Lisbon Agenda and European Employment Strategy). For
example, the Europe2020 goals and indicators remain gender blind and thus offer
limited opportunities for achieving gender equality.
Other softer governance tools that the EU has used in gender policy include funding
and action programmes. Sophie Jacquot (2015) has studied the patterns of EU
funding for gender policy and argues that there has been a reduction in funding for
gender-specific actions across the board. The position of gender has been weakened
in action programmes too (e.g. the Daphne programmes on violence were subsumed
to PROGRESS) that now focus on multiple inequalities rather than just on gender.
Institutionally, it is significant that gender issues were moved from the Commis-
sion’s Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs to the Directorate-
General for Justice. Whilst there has always been a tendency in the EU gender policy
governance to prioritise anti-discrimination measures over positive action and gen-
der mainstreaming, this has been accentuated by the institutional shake-up. There
is a danger that this will further distance EU gender governance from the social
policies that are so central to achieving equality, raising questions about access to
and influence in these fields and narrowing the definition of gender equality.
73
Does the governance of gender equality policies at the EU level need to be refor-
med? To answer this question, we need to understand what worked well before. As
illustrated above, a successful gender governance framework rests on different pil-
lars and the use of different tools. In other words, the complexity of gender equality
makes it necessary to develop different tools in a balanced way. Each one needs to
be strengthened, not downgraded as is happening now - silently and partly unin-
tentionally - as part of bigger trends. For example, there should not be an exclusive
focus on anti-discrimination when dealing with multiple inequalities (‘multiple di-
scrimination’) - positive action and mainstreaming need to be considered too.
A renewed strong focus on social policy and employment is also required. The po-
sition of gender needs to be confirmed in this area as well as in economic policies,
especially those relating to austerity and the economic and financial crisis. Gender
mainstreaming is a potentially useful tool if it is implemented in an expansive and
binding way. The extensive feminist research into its strengths and weaknesses
needs to be better integrated into the development of policies to achieve it.
To underpin successful governance of gender policy, we need a vision not only of
the governance and tools required, but also of gender equality itself. This calls for a
political debate on how to achieve gender equality and what form this should take.
Ultimately, there is a need to strengthen definitions that use a broad notion of gen-
der equality – as equality of outcomes – as a starting point, as opposed to narrow,
market-oriented definitions of equality of opportunities. We also need to understand
the ways in which gender intersects with other inequalities and what this means for
governance.
74
The governance of gender equality: issues and tools for stake-

holder mobilisation and participation
By Ulrike Liebert
Cross-cutting challenges
The present, recent past and near future of the EU is marked by an ongoing econo-
mic crisis, with high unemployment and increasingly complex inequalities. In order
to drive the gender equality agenda forward and make it effective in the five years
to come, EU-policy makers face several cross-cutting challenges.
A first one is the strikingly ‘gender blind’ nature of the public debates that do take
issue with the financial crisis and its societal impacts, but without highlighting the
problem of gender disparities. While the unequal distributional consequences of
Troika programmes have become key topics of debate in debtor states (such as Ire-
land, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus) as well as in creditor states (for instance, Germany),
issues of gender inequality and discrimination have not received much attention
in the context of the euro-zone crisis. This is surprising since – in contrast to the
Europe 2020 targets - progress towards the equality of women and men in the EU
evidently has stalled or even fallen back as a consequence of the crisis.
The second challenge for future gender equality policy lies in the new constraints
the EU has introduced when building the ‘genuine economic and monetary union’.
This new governance regime for the euro zone has made the rule of austerity (Fi-
scal Compact) compulsory and significantly strengthened the tools for the fiscal
surveillance of the Member States (European Semester). The new rules and tools
profoundly change how the risks, benefits and costs of financial and economic pro-
cesses will be distributed among the citizens of the euro zone within and across the
member states. However, they do not take advantage of the tried-and-tested tool
kit for gender equality.
A third and final challenge to forward-looking EU gender policy stems from the
unprecedented drop of popular trust in EU institutions, the mobilisation of anti-
EU sentiment among citizens and the empowerment of organised actors striving
for renationalisation of EU competences. These trends threaten to further multiply
gender equality gaps instead of reducing them among the EU-28 Member States.
Recommendations for governance reforms at the European level
What needs to be done to make the governance of gender equality work effectively
in the EU? More specifically, what is needed to mobilise key stakeholders such as
companies, social partners and civil society in ways that help re-build citizens’ trust
in the EU? Currently, there are deficits in three realms: 1) gender awareness, compe-
tence and capacity-building; 2) policy-relevant knowledge about the gender impacts
of Economic and Monetary Union; and 3) opportunities for citizen participation in EU
gender policy.
A number of small-scale innovations are sufficient to tackle these deficits. For this
purpose, the following tools are proposed:
75
‘Stakeholder capacity-building’ requires knowledge-based instruments for the edu-

cation of citizens, civil society actors, social partners and think tanks who share an
interest in the field of gender equality. Educational tools target, for instance, bet-
ter gender awareness and understanding of the ‘intersectionality’ of gender, class,
race, religion and other sources of inequality. They are needed to fight ‘financial
illiteracy’, especially among women. They provide competences for gender-impact
assessment that civil society actors can use to hold national governments or supra-
national agencies to account. As importantly, they help them monitor the ‘gender
responsibility’ of private companies (so far missing in Corporate Social Responsibi-
lity frameworks), beyond quotas to ensure a certain proportion of female members
on company boards. They also provide competences for negotiating fundamental
religious conflict and tolerance regarding appropriate gender roles.
‘Gender mainstreaming’ provides the tools for merging gender-impact assessment
procedures into the governance architecture for Economic and Monetary Union. For
instance, to gender mainstream the ‘European Semester’, the European Commis-
sion will incorporate gender equality benchmarks into its framework for setting up
‘country-specific recommendations (CSR). Moreover, the way national governments
implement CSR provisions regarding gender equality will then be monitored by the
European and national parliaments. The extent to which the European Semester –
and EMU in general - effectively engage with gender equality issues at the domestic
level will change EMU’s governance mode, moving from a predominantly bureaucra-
tic, expertise-based and market-biased mode of governance into a model of socially
innovative governance, at the service of the European citizens, mediated by the
Commission in the framework of the European parliamentary system.
An additional set of tools would be required for citizens who want to participate in
EU gender equality policy directly. This could happen, for instance, at the local or
regional level by citizens applying for and using EU Structural Funds to promote
gender equality. Such tools could make use of the new social networks and the
technologies for multi-layered eGovernance; for transparency, coordination and co-
operation. For example, Internet forums allow for project discussion and coordina-
tion or online mechanisms for the submission of proposals for projects to be funded
by the EU.
To advance an innovative, socially responsive and participatory style of governance
in the field of gender equalities in Europe, the Commission will need to upgrade its
existing tool kit. But this will not be sufficient. In addition, gender equality policy
making will need “velvet triangles” (Woodward) with roots in the Commission, the
European Parliament, the Council of the EU and in NGOs, to reach out into other pro-
grammes - such as education and lifelong learning (ErasmusPlus; Action Jean Mon-
net); Corporate Social Responsibility; the European ‘digital market’; and, foremost,
Economic and Monetary Union. All these fields contribute to shaping the challenges
and boost or constrain the equality of women and men in times of financial crisis
and austerity.
Ultimately, these different tools need to be integrated into a coherent framework of
governance that can be publicly identified and endorsed by citizens. In so far as this
approach to the governance of gender equality differs from top-down bureaucratic
and economic market-oriented modes, it will be innovative and labelled as a form
of participatory ‘stakeholder governance’. These reforms will bring the EU closer to
citizens, by mobilising key stakeholders such as companies, social partners and civil
society.
76
Why is it important to address gender equality issues?
To tackle gender equality issues in the future, it is important that the EU build on the
significant advances it has made in the past. The principle of equality is prominently
enshrined in the EU Treaties. Equality between women and men and non-discrimi-
nation are amongst the most fundamental values, rights and principles of the peo-
ples of Europe. They are shared on the basis of their constitutional traditions and
the international obligations of their states. Recognised by the successive European
Community treaties and by the Treaty on European Union, they became objectives
for innovative policy-making in the EU’s multi-layered system. At the supranatio-
nal level, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) reaffirmed rights to non-
discrimination and equality between women and men, on which the EU Union under
the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) now relies. Moreover, over the past four decades, an
extensive body of gender equality directives has gained teeth in the member states,
driven by the evolving case law of the European Court of Justice.
In relation to current practices, however, the EU appears to have advanced little
more than halfway towards gender equality. As the 2013 Gender Equality Index Re-
port (EIGE )30 put it: “Despite 50 years of gender equality policies and actions at the
European level, member states have not yet managed to overcome gender gaps,
thus there is a need for further efforts.” In fact, in the context of the crisis, gender-
sensitive statistical data collected by EIGE (2013) reveal the persistence of gender
gaps in six core domains: work, health, money, knowledge, time and power. There
are also two cross-cutting domains: intersecting equalities and violence; and how
macroeconomic policies perpetuate gender inequality, a lower female than male
labour force participation rate and unpaid care work.
The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other international organisations
have recently prioritised women and girls. The best IMF gender-focused report to
date31 synthesises a market-based, instrumentalist gender-approach that embraces
“gender equality as smart economics” and upholds women’s employment as an in-
strument to boost economic growth. NGO gender-equality advocates argue that this
is a problematic one-dimensional approach, because it does not simultaeneously
promote women’s and men’s equal human rights as the only way to overcome per-
sistent patriarchal patterns. Questioning human rights-based proposals, economists
warn that the upgrading of EU powers and resources would put too heavy a burden
on companies and national economies.
What can be done differently in the future? The EU should develop an approach
which differs from that of the IMF, the World Bank and other economic organisations
in three respects.
First, it should not instrumentalise gender equality by reducing gender inequalities
and biases and discrimination against women primarily to their impact on women’s
contribution to measured economic activity and the enhancement of macroecono-
mic performance.
Second, it should fully endorse the rights-rooted approach to gender equality, which
emphasises gender equality as an intrinsically desirable good. It should develop this
through quality-of-life indicators for assessing the contribution and consequences
of EU macroeconomic policies on gender equality, women’s economic empower-
30 Available at http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-equality-index-report.

31 See Elborgh-Woytek K. et al (2013).
77
ment and their overall well-being.32 If the starting point is the human and funda-
mental rights‘ obligations of EU member states, women must have equal access to
both tangible and intangible resources to the same extent as men, so that they can
maximise their choices and options in society. To date, the inter-linkages between
the EU’s management of the crisis and EMU-related lending, economic and financial
surveillance, policy advice and gender equality have not been sufficiently explored.
The Union must discuss the adverse impacts of its monetary, fiscal and structu-
ral adjustment policies on gender equality and women’s empowerment, assessing
how fiscal and monetary policy impact on the poverty dynamics underlying the link
between women, paid work and unpaid reproductive work.
Third, the EU must also engage with European and – as a global actor – internatio-
nal rules for transnational corporations that enhance their compliance with national
tax systems. This is a necessary precondition for fiscally-weak Member States to
generate more tax revenues to spend on social policies, including gender priorities.
32 See Eurostat database for data since 2011.
78
Gender equality and non-discrimination: how to tackle multiple

discrimination effectively?
By Hege Skjeie
Discrimination on multiple grounds poses grave obstacles to gender equality.
Over the past two decades, there has been a significant broadening of the legal pro-
tection against discrimination in Europe. Implementing new EU directives, member
states’ equality legislation has expanded to cover not only gender but also racial or
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation – the EU “six
strands” policy base. This has been accompanied by an increasingly complex set of
institutional arrangements to address inequalities. 33
The EU is now seen as a major actor in promoting equality policies and in Europe,
new politics of equality have emerged within a ‘multiple discrimination’ framework.
Three major questions regarding these reform processes are asked regularly: Is the
new equality framework of “multiple grounds” sufficiently anchored in EU law and
policy? Is it implemented in ways which do not marginalise gender equality policy?
Is it able to address intersectional problems?
EU directives on non-discrimination take a ‘ground by ground’ approach. The need
to protect against multiple discrimination is mainly addressed in recitals and soft
law supplements to formal legal texts. Initiatives are still largely contained within
a strict non-discrimination framework, with positive duty programmes or gender
mainstreaming policies tending to remain one dimensional. The European Commis-
sion’s “Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-1015” and its most
recent progress report substantiate this: in these documents and reports, the domi-
nant equality notion is mainly one-dimensional.
What have recently been termed ‘gender+’ equality policies 34 - i.e. policies which
address gender inequalities in relation to other inequalities - are rather few and far
between. (The most notable exception deals with the implementation of non-discri-
mination law, where it highlights “the aggravated consequences of discrimination
on two or more grounds”.)35
Yet it is now commonly recognised that one-dimensional policy making misses out
on the interaction between complex differences in people’s lives and experiences as
well as in social, cultural and institutional practices. What more needs then to be
done? This is a challenge on a truly grand scale. In this essay, I will argue for three
simple proposals, which mainly relate to base-line policy; i.e. the legal protection
against multiple and intersectional discrimination.
33 For a comprehensive mapping of equality institutions in Europe, see for instance Krizsan et al.
2012.
34 See summary and sources for the European research project QUING, led by Mieke Verloo, http://
www.quing.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 visited 10-28-14
35 Strategy for equality between women and men 2012-2015. COM(2010) 491 final, SEC(2010)
1079 and SEC(2010) 1080., chapter 6.2. Legislation.
79
Multiple and intersectional discrimination
United Nations’ gender equality initiatives increasingly stress intersectional pro-

blems. EU policy processes stick to the multiple-grounds approach. Is this an impor-
tant distinction? This essay is clearly not the place for in-depth conceptual debate,
but this is nevertheless central to the law-based handling of multiple discrimination
cases, where legal scholarship has been instrumental in framing new inequality
concerns. Here, it suffices to say that while the notion of ‘multiple’ refers to the
presence of several causes of discrimination, it leaves open the question of ‘in-
tersectionality’; i.e. whether these grounds can in fact be treated separately or are
interwoven and non-separable factors in a specific discriminatory practice.
It seems clear that judicial practice more easily develops to manage multiple rather
than intersectional forms of discrimination. There are, however, important excep-
tions where intersectional discrimination defines the case in ways which are not
reducible to a grounds-by-grounds approach. New concerns about intersectionality
thus provide an important contrast to traditional judicial approaches to rights’ pro-
tection and enhancement. These have built on the notion that people are, or can be,
discriminated against mainly on one ground at the time, and that different grounds
can be treated separately in legal instruments.
Overviews regularly show that multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination
are not easy to address in any legal system.36 This does not mean, however, that it
is impossible. ‘Best practice’ adjudication can be identified in different national legal
contexts. Intersectional discrimination is, for instance, a common problem in haras-
sment cases involving both sex and race/ethnicity. (One discrimination case handled
by the Norwegian Equality Tribunal may be illustrative of such problems: the case
shed light on a prejudiced stereotyping of ‘Asian women’, with the women involved
denied access to a hotel in Oslo on the unfounded suspicion that they – being wo-
men of Asian background - were prostitutes – see Box 9).
Box 9. The harm caused by stereotyping
Two women of Asian background tried to check in at a hotel in the Norwegian

capital of Oslo. Their home addresses were in the vicinity of the city. The hotel
had written guidelines which made refusals on this basis possible, and the
women were told that they could not check in. They asked for an explanation
and were informed about the guidelines, but also that the reasoning behind
this rule was that hotel guests from the Oslo area could turn out to be “prosti-
tutes or drug addicts out to make trouble” for the hotel. The Equality Tribunal
found the hotel to be in violation of the protections against discrimination on
grounds of sex and ethnicity combined. No attempt was made by the Tribunal
to distinguish between grounds and naming a comparator was not seen rele-
vant to the decision. In this instance, the hotel receptionist had acted on the
basis of a stereotypical notion of ‘foreign prostitutes’ in which the women’s
Asian background was integral to the refusal. The hotel owner did not appeal
against the decision.37
36 For a first and most instructive review, see Burri and Schiek (2009) and Krizsan et al. (2012) for
such examples.
37 An English translation of the decision (case 1/2008) can be found at http://www.diskriminering-
snemnda.no/wips/1529714557/
80
The CEDAW recommendation
In 2010, the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discri-
mination against Women (CEDAW) committee clarified the core obligations of state
parties under Article 2 of the Convention. It states that protection against intersec-
tional discrimination is such an obligation: “The discrimination of women based on
sex and gender is inextricably linked with other factors that affect women, such as
race ethnicity, religion or belief, health, status, age, class, caste and sexual orien-
tation and gender identity. Discrimination on the basis of sex or gender may affect
women belonging to such groups to a different degree or in different ways to men.
States parties must legally recognise such intersecting forms of discrimination and
their compounded negative impact on the women concerned and prohibit them.”
A reasonable follow-up to this general recommendation would be to secure an ex-
plicit protection against such discrimination in the legal texts. Ground-specific le-
gislation should contain a clause which makes it clear that discrimination on one
protected ground in combination with other protected grounds is prohibited. This is
irrespective of how national legislation and national equality bodies are organised;
whether ‘ground by ground’ or in combined framings.
Such a proposal is in line with earlier recommendations made by the network of
legal experts on multiple discrimination: there is a need for a common clarifying
clause on protection against multiple discrimination in the legal texts of the EU’s
non-discrimination directives. 38
Why is this important? Such a simple provision would make it clear to all those who
read the legal texts that multiple and intersectional grounds are protected. Plain-
tiffs, victims and perpetrators, judges and tribunal members would all be equally
enlightened to this simple fact. This is a clear-cut way to overcome repeatedly
observed obstacles to the handling of multiple and intersectional discrimination
cases in courts and tribunals across Europe.
Broad equality laws typically combine discrimination bans with positive duties. In
the same vein, regulations on positive equality duties and/or gender mainstreaming
should contain a similar provision, whether they seek to bind public authorities, em-
ployers or educational institutions: implementation of positive duties must address
gender-based discrimination in relation to other protected grounds for discrimina-
tion.
Low-threshold access to justice
In questions of access to justice, low-threshold monitoring is generally recognised

as crucial to the effectiveness of non-discrimination law. The same goes for the
availability of sanctions within low-threshold arrangements. As made clear by the
EU Agency on Fundamental Rights (FRA)39 while access to justice typically means
having a case heard in a court of law, it can more broadly be supported through
mechanisms such as national human rights institutions, equality bodies and ombud
institutions.
38 Cf. Burri and Schiek 2009: 24, and note their comment on comparators; that this is only one way
of proving discrimination.
39 The European Union Agency on Fundamental Rights, see http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/access-
justice visited 10-28-14
81
Box 10. The importance of targeted rights information
The Norwegian Ombud and Tribunal system operates on the basis of a low-th-
reshold arrangement for treating complaints about discrimination. The Ombud
has a duty to provide counsel in such cases, and adjudication is free. A review
of the Ombud´s case portfolio in 2011 nevertheless showed that complaints
were clearly skewed with regard to age, class, and place of residence. Relati-
vely few multiple discrimination cases involving gender and ethnicity could be
identified. Investigations also revealed that there is no systematic rights in-
formation work in place in Norway (apart from the regular Ombud’s activities).
It seems reasonable to suppose that the lack of broad rights information helps
to explain the low representativeness of complaints.
FRA research shows that access to justice is still problematic in a number of EU

member states. Poor knowledge of the tools available is one major reason: people
have rights they simply do not know about. Generally speaking, targeted dissemi-
nation of rights information tends to have low priority in member states’ equality
policy. On this basis, my final suggestion would be to ensure that problems related
to equal access are thoroughly addressed in any consideration of effective imple-
mentation of equality legislation. Rights enforcement should not depend on avai-
lable individual resources; low-threshold systems must have the power to sanction
violations.
Conclusion
The CEDAW committee now places legal protection against intersectional forms of
discrimination among the core obligations of state parties. Further development
of European equality legislation must recognise this obligation. The same concern
should, of course, inform all efforts to improve low-threshold access to justice. Equal
access to justice is vital for real equality.
82
Cross-cutting issues for the gender equality agenda 2015 and

beyond
By Trudie Knijn
Today’s concerns about gender equality have to be placed within the framework of
three devolutionary trends.
Firstly, the EU and its member states are still coping with the aftermath of the fi-
nancial and economic crisis, the effects of economic decline, flexible labour markets
and work insecurity, social insecurity and the mobility of (young) migrant workers.
In this process, the impact of an imbalance between the economic forces of the EU
– particularly the free trade in goods, people and services – and social citizenship
rights that are still mainly derived from the nation state demand serious attention.
This imbalance raises new cross-cutting gender-equality issues, and implies work
and income protection for vulnerable groups in the labour market such as mobile
youngsters of both sexes and mainly-female migrant care workers. Rights related
to family formation and reproduction are additional core issues for this growing
population of cross-border workers that demand policy attention.
Secondly, devolution refers to processes of scale. Member states and their political
elites appear to be increasingly hesitant to upscale policy responsibility to the EU.
By contrast – and for budgetary reasons, retrenchment and austerity – there is a
tendency to downscale policy responsibility to local or regional governments.
Thirdly, gender equality as a policy aim appears to be losing priority. Once a ‘catch-
all principle’ – to provide a labour reserve and resources for increasing household
income, contribute to the knowledge economy and maintain fertility – gender equa-
lity today is seemingly being sacrificed as a high-priority policy aim.
Against this backdrop, it may be necessary for the EU to shift attention as well as
governance to those aspects of gender-equality policy that worry many of its popu-
lations. In fact, the percentage of women on company boards, in parliaments and
in higher education is not the real cause of concern. To frame it positively: the EU
might gain support for its gender equality policy if it succeeds in developing gender-
related human and social rights policies that foster labour- and income-related
social protection as well as family- and care-related social rights that support the
reconciliation of work and care. These are not new policies - it is what the EU has
done in the past (1980s and 1990s) – but this time the economic and governance
context is different, and it remains necessary to highlight examples of good practice.
European governments have reacted to financial and economic crises in different
ways. The EU does not speak with a single voice on the strategy required to over-
come the effects of the crisis and preserve the European Social Model, or on the
preferred outcomes for its populations in terms of at least maintaining pre-crisis le-
vels of gender equality. From this perspective, it might be useful for the governance
tools for benchmarking gender equality from 2015 onwards to address the impact
of the crisis, and the reforms introduced in response to it.
83
Questions that could be addressed are:

• How have EU member states reacted to the crisis, did they invest in or retrench
public services, and what effect has this had on female employment?
• How have member states reacted to the crisis in terms of social protection, and
what impact has this had on poverty rates among (young) men and women?
• How do member states monitor the gender effects of decentralising responsi-
bilities (to local governments) and outsourcing them (to the market or non-profit
organisations)
• How do member states mitigate the effects of flexible labour markets, and what
impact do they have on gender?
Governance tools might include not only dates and figures or EU committees and
stakeholders, but also an evaluation of the way in which member states have con-
sidered the gender impact of policy reforms. As in the past, EU agencies should
demand that member states report on the gender effects of public service and
social security reforms. My inspiration for this comes from my own country, the Ne-
therlands, where budget-inspired reforms have left daughters, wives and mothers
struggling once again to juggle work with responsibilities to care for children and
the elderly (see Box 11).
It is hard to define the target groups for action on gender equality from 2015
onwards. Although the aim is to reach all levels of society, for obvious reasons the
recent focus has been on women at the top. In my country, for instance, in academic
circles we lose 10% of women at every step in the hierarchical ladder: over 50%
of masters’ degree-holders are female, at the PhD level the figure falls to 40%,
assistant professors 30%, associate professors 20%, and full professors less than
15%. The figures for women on company executive boards are also alarmingly low.
However, the EU should also be aware of the shrinking middle classes and the incre-
asingly unprotected lower classes. American-style polarisation is undermining the
European social model, with a severe impact on social cohesion, social well-being
and (not least) beliefs about what the EU means for people’s lives. Just one example
to illustrate this: if the loss of tens of thousands of female jobs in public services
are blamed on EU-driven reform policies, women will forget that the EU once imple-
mented directives for equal payments and pensions. Hence target groups for further
evaluation of gender equality should include women on welfare, poor families and
those on temporary labour contracts, with or without social protection.
There needs to be a strong focus on the core EU policy of free movement of goods,
services and people. So far, this policy has not included social protection directives
(or at least these are contested) or family-related legislation such as recognition of
family formation and reproduction variants (same-sex marriages, abortion, recogni-
tion of children born out of wedlock, etc.). Member states are of course autonomous
in setting their own criteria for social protection and family law, but discrepancies
between free trade and freedom of movement and how this plays out in individual
country’s systems and regulations have to be considered – otherwise resolving such
conflicts will be left to the European courts.
Another target group that is increasing in importance and scale are migrant care
workers. Here, two issues are at stake. Firstly, migrant care workers themselves:
how their rights are protected, what contracts they have, who is protecting their
social rights, whether they are paid at least a minimum wage also when working
in private households, etc. Secondly, the risk of ‘care drain’ from EU member states
that have invested in their training to countries that benefit from this training and
84
need migrants to reduce the costs of caring for the elderly without reducing em-
ployment opportunities for their own female workforce.
So far, the EU debate on these issues has been very much an internal one, with a
huge gap between the neo-liberalist EU approach and what the populations of the
EU member states had hoped for.
Addressing these issues is not easy. Communication on gender equality might be
improved by explaining the problems instead of advertising what are sometimes
minimal results, making people confront the real issues; by encouraging young
journalists to take part in internships, workshops and seminars; and by funding an
exchange programme for the new generation of journalists in the member states.
Finally, it is my conviction that the main problem at the moment is that gender
equality - to which the EU made a major contribution before the start of the 21st
century - is being poisoned by the neo-liberal route the Union has taken since then.
The focus on getting higher-educated women in top positions illustrates such a per-
spective and undermines public identification with the EU as well as its credibility. It
also devalues the Union’s meaning and importance in the hearts and minds of the
population.
If the EU does not succeed in reaching the ‘common’ woman – and man - gender
equality objectives stand no chance of being reached. For this reason, we need to
focus on tensions and dilemmas, on reforms and their outcomes, on complexities
instead of on straightforward results, on conflicting interests and – in the end – on
the gender impact of the recent reforms.
85
Box 11. The Dutch example
Wide-ranging public service reforms are having a significant negative impact

on female employment, caring for children and the elderly, and reconciling
work and care, with the burden falling mainly on adult daughters of frail
elderly women and the mothers of young children.
The Dutch government has implemented austerity measures that primarily
hit women working in public and already commercialised sectors. In the field
of care for the elderly, the government endorsed the 2014 EU recommen-
dations that the quality and accessibility of long‐term care needs to be mo-
nitored and maintained at an adequate level. In the Dutch National Reform
Plan of 2013, it highlighted the ‘wide range of measures’ it had presented to
make funding for long-term care more sustainable. Like its predecessor, this
government’s aim is to develop a more tailored system of health care, with
more care being provided closer to home. The proposed measures will yield
savings of approximately 3.5 billion euro and, as a result, despite the growing
demand for care, spending on long-term care is not expected to rise in the
period 2013-2017.
Various measures came into force on 1 January 2013. For example, patients
in the two lightest categories of residential care have been transferred to ou-
tpatient care; the target group for the personal health care budget has been
scaled back; and the funding of geriatric rehabilitation has been transferred
to health insurers (delivering total savings of 0.7 billion euro). Patients’ finan-
cial assets will also weigh more heavily in determining personal payments for
residential care, with clients required to make a higher personal contribution,
which will generate additional income of 80 million euro a year.
Implementing these measures will cut female jobs in residential care for the
elderly and disabled by 10,000 to 55,000 (estimates vary). These reforms in
care for the elderly are paralleled by reforms in youth care and social work in-
troduced from January 1 2015. Moreover, moving to local budgetary respon-
sibility for these areas will cost thousands of (mainly female) professional
jobs. Finally, the reduction in tax deductions for childcare costs has resulted in
30% of parents withdrawing from (mainly commercially provided) childcare
since 2010. Quality and tax relief go down and prices go up - a reason for
parents to either reduce their working week or find informal solutions.
86
The role of the Internet and new media: amplifier of gender in-
equalities or vehicle for change?
By Maria Edström
The media can both hinder and accelerate progress towards gender equality. They
can communicate the results of efforts to tackle this issue, but may also contribute
to producing gender stereotypes.
Films, advertising, computer games and journalism can make us informed, excited,
angry, hopeful or engaged. Whether the topic is education, crime, climate change
or gender equality, our opinions and willingness to act are often based on the way
these issues are portrayed in the media. That is why the media cannot be left out
of the equation when considering how to achieve gender equality in society.
The United Nations’ member countries committed themselves to ensuring women’s
access to - and combating gender stereotypes in - the media as early as 1995,
through the Beijing Platform for Action, but much closer monitoring of what is being
done to live up to those commitments is needed. It is of crucial importance that pro-
ducers and users of media have the skills required to counter stereotypes and that
they allow room for a fair portrayal of people regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or
other categorisations, and give them a voice.
Freedom of expression and gender equality go hand-in-hand
Gender equality and freedom of expression are integral parts of human rights, and
you cannot have one without the other. Yet they are often talked about as separate
values and rights. Gender equality has been an important component of recent di-
scourses on freedom of expression. One example of this is the UNESCO World Tren-
ds in Freedom of Expression and Media Development (2104), which emphasises the
link between the two issues.
However, in many gender equality discourses, the media and freedom of expression
are disregarded. The EU’s former strategy for gender equality, A Roadmap for Equa-
lity Between Women and Men 2006–2010, identified six priority areas for action,
one of which was to combat and eliminate gender stereotypes in education, training
and culture, the labour market and the media. But today, the media is no longer pri-
oritised. The current EU Strategy for Equality Between Women and Men 2010-2015
does not mention ‘freedom of expression’ at all, and the word ‘media’ is mentioned
only once in the list of areas of concern in the Beijing Platform for Action.
The EU remains committed to meeting the goals of the UN Convention on the Eli-
mination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), such as changing
gender stereotypes; and to the Beijing Platform for Action, with its two targets re-
lated to women and the media: to increase women’s participation and access to
expression and decision-making in and through the media and new communication
technologies; and to promote a balanced and non-stereotyped portrayal of men and
women in the media. Yet the EU strategy no longer mentions any specific goals for
the media.
This might explain why it is taking so long to address this issue. The EU has crea-
ted indicators for almost all areas of the Beijing Platform, but none in the area of
women and media until 2013. The Union now calls on the member states to report
87
annually on: (1) the proportions of women and men in decision-making posts in
media organisations; (2) the proportions of women and men on the boards of media
organisations; and (3) policies to promote gender equality in media organisations. It
is noteworthy that there is still no indicator for progress on the Beijing Platform for
Action’s second target, non-stereotypical portrayals.
It remains to be seen whether member states will include media statistics in their
annual reports. There is still a lack of consistent, reliable and comparative data on
gender equality in the media and without statistics, how can we know what the pro-
blem is and where we are going? Monitoring of actions already decided on should
be mandatory.
This lack of action can be explained by a fear of interfering. Self-regulation has
been the main strategy for the media industry, with many politicians reluctant to
act amid concern that a more regulated media industry could be seen as a form of
censorship or a way of limiting freedom of expression. It is, however, time to ask
ourselves whose freedom of expression is being protected or hampered. When new
technology and the search for new business models challenge older media and
structures, it is even more important to commit to safeguarding freedom of expres-
sion and gender equality.
Women should have a genuine impact on decision-making in the media
In 2006, Agnés Callamard, from the NGO Article 19, coined the expression ‘gender-
based censorship’ to describe the failure of news media to include women in their
coverage, with news content still very male dominated. Globally, only 24% of news
reports are about women (Global Media Monitoring Project, 2010).
In terms of numbers of men and women working in the media, there seems to be
parity in many news rooms, according to the Global Report on the Status of Women
in the News Media (Byerly, 2011), but there also appears to be a glass ceiling, with
high-level decision-making still dominated by men. Progress towards gender equa-
lity in the media also seems to have been hampered by the recent economic crisis,
with many media companies facing major challenges to their business models and
women more likely to be found in part-time jobs and temporary positions while
more technology-driven positions are held by men.
Systematic, transparent self-monitoring could be a first step in addressing the lack
of gender sensitivity in the media industry. Authorities can also insist on monitoring
of media content. This is being done through national legislation in some countries,
but could also be enforced at EU level.
There have been a number of initiatives in the film sector, by both the industry and
governing bodies, and the advertising industry is starting to address the lack of
gender equality. It is also important to tackle this issue in the gaming industry, a
fast-growing sector of the media industry that may have the most significant gen-
der equality problems (there is no data to prove otherwise).
Media storytelling needs to be more inclusive and diverse
There are positive examples of newsrooms that include gender and diversity as a
core part of their future strategy to remain relevant for their readers and viewers.
This is not only a matter of rights and democratic values; these companies use the
business argument that more women and more diversity in the news delivers bet-
88
ter journalism and attracts more readers, which in turn leads to increased financial
stability. These newsrooms are demonstrating that gender awareness, gender-sen-
sitive leadership, regular monitoring and measurable goals can deliver important
change (see also Edström, 2012 and Edstrom & Mølster, 2014).
It is also time to acknowledge that gender parity in the media is not enough on its
own, as other power structures intersect with gender and make some people even
more invisible and voiceless in the media. Greater diversity in the news in terms of
gender, ethnicity, age and other dimensions can make it more interesting and rele-
vant and engage more people.
Closing the digital divides and fostering media literacy
New technologies and new media offer fantastic new ways to communicate. Today’s
problem is not a lack of information, but the abundance of it. This also means pe-
ople can create their own worlds, where only the news they like reaches them. The
era of media as a public sphere for common discussions may be over, and there is
a risk that really important information will only be available to those who pay for
it. Open access to public documents and research is therefore crucial, and the most
important issue here is to address the digital divides, between countries, between
age groups and between people from different socio-economic backgrounds.
To access, evaluate and use information, we need more media literacy skills. These
skills are also important when we produce media. It is popular to talk about media
users as ‘prosumers’, since many of us both use and produce media. But you do not
become a journalist or a director just because you can publish a film on YouTube.
Ethics, accountability and a critical approach to sources are just some examples of
the knowledge and skills that should be included in the curriculum (and perhaps
computer coding should be mandatory for all children, girls and boys).
End sexualised hate speech
Women who speak out have always faced risks and unfortunately, this has not
changed with new technology. Sexualised hate speech is a serious problem not only
for young people on visual platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram, but also for
professional media workers. Women journalists appear to suffer from more sexual
harassment and sexualised threats of various kinds than men, both on- and offline.
Some female journalists have chosen to speak openly about this through the me-
dia and this seems to have yielded positive results. Here, much more research and
action are needed.
Share knowledge and good practices – let’s make change
The media can contribute to sustainable development if gender equality and free-
dom of expression are taken into account and regarded as crucial for reaching
future goals set at national, European or global level. The lack of gender equality
in the media is often an echo of a lack of gender equality overall. Making changes
and tackling gender-limiting norms in the media cannot be treated as a stand-alone
issue, nor will self-regulation or one legislative change suffice. It is time to step up
action - at both the structural level and on behalf of individuals in the media indust-
ry - to realise the media’s potential to be a real vehicle of change in driving progress
towards gender equality.
89
Box 12. Nordic Initiative 1: Nordicom project Nordic Gender & Media
Forum
The Nordic Gender and Media Forum project has compiled sex-disaggregated
statistics for the Nordic media industry (film, journalism, advertising and com-
puter games). This data provides a knowledge base for discussion on good
gender practices in the media. During the project, it has become evident that
sex-disaggregated media statistics are seldom prioritised and there is a lack
of consistent, reliable and comparative data. In the anthology Making Change.
Nordic Examples of Working Towards Gender Equality in the Media (Nordi-
com 2014), representatives from academia, civil society, activism and industry
identify both problems, solutions and ways to move forward.
www.nordicom.gu.se http://www.nordicom.gu.se/en/media-trends/nordic-gen-
der-media-forum
Box 13. Nordic Initiative 2: Swedish Film Institute
Since 1963, Swedish film production has been subsidised by the Swedish Film
Institute, through an agreement between the Swedish state and the film in-
dustry. Since 2005, gender equality is emphasised in this agreement, with
support for film production to be divided evenly between the sexes. The distri-
bution of production support by the institute between the sexes is carefully
monitored and reported. It has also set up a website Nordic Women in Film:
www.nordicwomenfilm.com
Box 14. Nordic Initiative 3: KVINFO expert database
For many years, KVINFO – The Danish Centre for Information on Gender, Equa-
lity and Diversity – has been working strategically to increase the visibility of
women experts through its online database. This database (kvinfo.dk) is free to
access and can be used by anyone. During the 2013 Irish EU Presidency, it was
designated ‘Good Practice’ for relentlessly promoting the existence of women
experts, despite their persistent underrepresentation in the media. KVINFO and
its regional partners have established expert databases in Jordan, Palestine,
Egypt and Lebanon – all using KVINFO’s Expert Database as their template.
Box 15. Nordic Initiative 4: The Swedish Association of Communication

Agencies KOMM
In 2011, the Swedish Association of Communication Agencies, KOMM, created

a Human Resources Committee with a single focus: how to create a balanced
advertising industry by 2020? Since then, KOMM has revised its own charter
and has been mandated by its member agencies to help them achieve this
change. KOMM has also conducted a member survey and published a book –
‘Mad Women – A Herstory of Advertising’ – a collection of stories, experiences
and advice from some of the world’s most successful women in advertising,
communication and design. www.komm.se
90
Bringing gender topics into the mainstream in schools

By Angelika Paseka
After almost 20 years of gender mainstreaming and plenty of targeted projects and
initiatives, it is necessary to step back and reflect on the depth and sustainability of
this strategy in schools. A closer look reveals various challenges and asks for further
strategies to cope with them.
Challenge 1: some facts
Over the past two decades, many strategies have been launched to achieve greater
gender equality. Curricula were reformulated; school books and classroom materials
changed; initiatives like special “boys’ days” and “girls’ days” in schools and at uni-
versities organised; and guidelines written for teachers in primary schools, seconda-
ry schools and teacher education programmes, with the aim of encouraging schools
to launch gender projects and, by doing so, challenge traditional behaviour and choi-
ces, for example concerning subjects, types of school, job and family aspirations.
What are the results?
Boys and girls sit shoulder-to-shoulder in the classroom. But still they have – and
are assumed to have – different expectations concerning their choice of subjects,
behaviour and attitudes.
Women have conquered the teaching profession at all levels, but schools are still
“gendered organisations” (Acker 1991), and vertical and horizontal segregation still
exists (Burchell et al 2014):
The higher the position, the more likely it is to be occupied by a man (e.g. school
principals or members of school boards at local, regional and national levels).
The vast majority of teachers in elementary and primary education are women
(90-100% in European countries), but the opposite is the case at the other end of
the spectrum, at universities, where men are in the majority, especially at professor
level.
The more ‘feminine’ the type of school and subject, the more likely it is that the
teachers will be women. Likewise, in ‘masculine’ type schools and subjects, teachers
are more likely to be male.
Men are now in a minority in teaching and have to cope with ambivalent messages:
on the one hand, they are welcomed by school principals and female teachers and
admired by the pupils; on the other, they experience difficulties in being accepted
as a ‘real teacher’ instead of as a ‘dad’, or as a ‘real colleague’ instead of as a man
(Paseka 2012, 94).
Women can now reach any position they want: in politics, in companies, in the fi-
nancial world. Equality seems to be possible and if women were tough enough,
they could be very successful. However, they still encounter ‘leaky pipelines’, ‘glass
ceilings’ and a gender pay gap, including in the teaching professions (OECD 2013,
Burchell et al 2014). One reason for this is that most young women still choose jobs
in female-dominated areas, prefer part-time jobs and take (long) maternity leave.
91
Challenge 2: existing gender discourses
Four different gender discourses can be differentiated: discourses about differences

between women and men, equal treatment, the construction and deconstruction of
sex and gender, and gender mainstreaming (Paseka 2008a). From a historical point
of view, these four discourses follow one after the other. But the older ones have not
disappeared; they still exist and their footprints can be found in scientific discourses
as well as in political strategies, in schools and in the education debate.
Box 16. The Austrian project GeKoS (Gender Competence Schools)
A closer look at what schools have done with regard to gender issues reveals
that one-third of schools emphasised the differences between girls and boys,
with the measures taken based (at least in part) on traditional gender norms,
for example that all girls prefer particular sports or have special needs. Ano-
ther one-third of schools realised that gender behaviour is also dependent on
the context. Only in one-third of the schools were teachers able to question
traditional thinking in terms of two gender categories and look at differen-
ces within gender groups (Wroblewski & Paseka 2009, 51).
Challenge 3: measuring gender equality strategies
To foster gender mainstreaming in order to achieve equality, clear aims have to be

formulated at all levels in the education system, forcing those involved to consider
special activities and to implement them. Here is an example from the Austrian
Federal Ministry of Education (2014):
Equality in teacher training: gender and diversity competences have to be imple-
mented in the new teacher education university colleges in Austria.
Equality in schools: gender-sensitive vocational education must be implemented in
secondary schools.
Indicator for equality: the number of girls and boys in non-typical schools increases.
However, there is a basic problem. Indicators should be able to measure results,
but it is virtually impossible to measure the core aspects of ‘gender competence’.
What basis should be used? The discourse on differences, perhaps? If that were so,
it would be enough for teacher trainers to be aware of the differences between
women and men. The discourse on construction/deconstruction of sex and gender
goes much further and makes reflection on one’s own interactions and attitudes
necessary. But how to measure that?
Gender-sensitive vocational education poses similar problems. Many schools offer
boys opportunities to visit kindergartens or institutions working with handicapped or
elderly people, while girls are given the chance to visit workplaces with a technical
bias. Counting the number of times such visits take place and how many girls and
boys are involved is not a problem. But how do we measure the effects of such vi-
sits? And what effects are actually sought? Would there even be any effects if such
visits are not reflected on in a gender-critical way?
92
All this demonstrates the clear need to anchor gender mainstreaming within a bro-
ader debate on professionalism and to extend school-development efforts beyond
superficial numbers, events and projects.
Strategy 1: Bringing gender into the mainstream of the professionalism debate
If gender initiatives and programmes are to be successful, gender competence

needs to be part of teachers’ and teacher trainers’ understanding of professionali-
sm. This means:
• having gender knowledge, including of the different discourses on gender;
• being able to recognise the effects of the two-gender norm both in general and
in education in particular;
• being willing and able to reflect on one’s own norms, attitudes and expectations
concerning gender; and, as a result
• being able to teach in a gender-sensitive way (Paseka 2008a).
But how can gender competence be learnt? The underlying assumptions about gen-
der are deeply ingrained, making resistance to gender issues and gender mainstre-
aming seem inevitable. To change such internalised attitudes and values requires
more than just information on a cognitive level. Learning must be seen “as a process
– as a process of construction, reconstruction and deconstruction of reality” (Reich
2005, 118f.). This requires a ‘crisis’ and creating a ‘crisis’ means initiating situations
in which routines, traditional patterns and attitudes we take for granted no longer
work. We then have to rethink our own knowledge or attitudes to find an explanation
or cope with a situation.
With this notion of learning in the background, teachers would have to provoke cri-
ses to start learning processes in their classes. How? First and foremost, they must
be provoked into asking questions, real questions. Three concepts might be useful
here (Paseka 2008a): enquiring learning, case-orientated learning and biographical
learning. These concepts are not specific to gender issues, but are the core of tea-
ching in general and therefore part of teachers’ professional knowledge.
93
Box 17. Examples of the different concepts of learning
Enquiring learning: The Austrian Federal Ministry of Education proposed a

shopping mall ‘gender safari’ exercise in materials for teachers. Pupils are
asked to go to a shopping mall and look at products not in their usual manner,
but from a new perspective - to identify gender-typical products, whatever
that means to them. This means that they have to discuss what they under-
stand by the term ‘gender-typical’ and reconstruct their theories about this. In
a second step, they have to think about changes: How can a product be made
‘gender-neutral’? How can it be made interesting for the other gender group?
When they do so, deconstruction happens: they (hopefully) see products with
new eyes and realise how they became gender-typical, transformed in a way
that made them attractive to just one gender. They might also discuss how
they have contributed to such processes by buying gender-typical products
they find attractive, making them aware that they too are responsible, at
least to some extent, for how many such products are made.
Case-orientated learning: analysing pictures (e.g. advertisements), video vi-
gnettes, real objects like historical buildings, or stories from a gender per-
spective.
Biographical learning: one example of this could be writing stories, such as a
project carried out by Frigga Haug & Ulrike Gschwandtner (2006). They asked
young people in different schools in Germany and Austria to write stories
about ‘A day in my life 20 years from now’. Their analysis revealed the very
traditional conceptions of their roles used by boys and girls in these stories.
In essence, these were not so different from those written by young people
in the 1980s (when they carried out this study for the first time), which had
provided a basis for their discussions with the pupils who took part in this
second project.
However, if we want teachers who can provoke learning processes in this way, we
need to provide an education which offers such learning processes to trainee tea-
chers.
Strategy 2: Bringing gender into the mainstream of school-development processes
However, anchoring gender issues within the professionalism debate still does not
seem to be enough. To bring about sustainable change, it is not only the professio-
nals as individuals who have to reflect on their situation. To bring gender into the
mainstream of schools as organisations, gender issues must be anchored within
school-development processes.
In this context, it is important not only for teachers to reflect on their situation and
learning processes as individuals, but also to collaborate and provide space for
reflexivity on a higher level, for example in so-called ‘professional learning commu-
nities’. They have to exchange knowledge and experiences, and become aware of
blind spots and visions. The implementation of gender issues in schools must not
be seen as an isolated process, but should rather use existing structures (e.g. school
meetings, subject groups or steering groups), giving teachers a much better chance
of revealing ‘theories-in-use’ - the practical knowledge which underlies so many
processes in organisations. Only then might organisational consciousness emerge
among the teaching staff.
94
Gender competence is not enough. There is a need for gender-mainstreaming com-

petence, including management strategies, to develop schools as a whole under a
gender perspective.
Box 18. An example from the GeKoS project
One of the lower secondary schools (for children aged 10-14) in this project
cooperated with a primary school and an upper secondary school with a tech-
nical bias. Some of the teachers organised an in-service training, supported by
their principals. Those who took part started to rethink some of their subjects
and tried to add a technical bias, not only for girls but for all pupils. Through
this, they expanded their professional knowledge in several dimensions: not
only from a subject perspective, but also with regard to how to organise le-
arning processes for pupils in a different way. Exchanges about gender topics
were established through school-wide conferences. As a consequence, orga-
nisational consciousness increased, along with awareness that gender must
be a topic for the whole organisation and cannot be considered an individual
matter for only some teachers.
Conclusions
Gender competence is a prerequisite for sustainable change to happen, including

not only knowledge about gender issues and gender theories but also gender awa-
reness and the ability to reflect critically on one’s own behaviour.
To increase gender competence, learning processes must be started by provoking
crises that put routines and traditional patterns which underlie our behaviour and
attitudes into question. Essentially, what we need are strategies for provoking such
processes – in schools as well as in teacher education, and on the individual as well
as the organisational level. There is also a need for gender mainstreaming com-
petence, including knowledge, abilities and attitudes to be aware of organisational
processes and how to manage them (Paseka 2008b).
To sum up, there is a need for:
• teachers who are not only gender aware but also have the organisational con-
sciousness to be able to start the processes of organisational learning;
• teacher trainers who are able to provoke individual learning processes as well as
organisational awareness;
• education boards and authorities (in schools and local government) which have
gender mainstreaming competence; and
• advisors on school-development processes, who not only have gender aware-
ness but also knowledge about the full range of learning processes.
95
References
References
Abby, R. (2011). Return of Feminist Liberalism, Durham: Acumen Publishing
Acker, J. (1991). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies. A Theory of Gendered Organizations in

Lorber, J., Farrell, S. (eds.). The Social Construction of Gender. Newsbury Park/Cali-
fornia: Sage, 162-179.
Altwicker-Hámori and Köllő (2013). Hungary: Public sector labour market from crisis
to crisis, in Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (ed.) Public Sector Schock, ILO and Edward Elgar.
Anderson, B. (2013). Us and Them? The dangerous politics of immigration control.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Antonopoulos, R. and Kim, K. (2011). Public job-creation programs: The economic

benefits of investing in social care? Case studies in South Africa and the United
States. Working paper, Levy Economics Institute, No. 671. Available at http://www.
levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_671.pdf
Astell, M. (1996). Reflections on Marriage, in Patricia Springborg (ed.), Astell: Politi-

cal Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Astell, M. (1997). A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, for the Advancement of Their True
and Greatest Interest, in Patricia Springborg (ed.). Brookfield, VT: Pickering and Chatto.
Asylum Aid (2012).’I feel like as a woman I’m not welcome’: a gender analysis of
UK asylum law, policy and practice. London: Asylum Aid. Available at http://www.asy-
lumaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ifeelasawoman_EXEC_SUM_WEB.pdf
Ballantyne, J. (8 October 2005). France pays mothers to have more children. News
Weekly, available at newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=2338 . Accessed 13 October
2014.
Bargawi, H. and Cozzi, G. (2014a). Engendering recovery for Europe: Modelling al-
ternatives to austerity. Foundation for Progressive Economic Research, Policy Brief
1B. Available at: http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/142f7bf4-baea-46c6-bcb7-
15583a23fee5/policy-brief-1b-2014pdf.pdf
Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Jensen, S. and Lleras-Muney, A., Breaking the Glass Ceil-
ing? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway. NBER
Working Paper No. 20256, pp.1-54.
Betti, G., Bettio, F., Georgiadis, Th. and Tinios, P. (2015). Unequal Aging in Europe:
Women’s Independence and Pensions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
96
References
Bettio, F., Corsi, M., D’Ippoliti, C., Lyberaki, A., Lodovici, M. S. and Verashchagina, A.
(2012). The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and
on Gender Equality Policies: Synthesis Report. Prepared for the European Commis-
sion DG Justice.
Bettio, F., Platenga, J. and Smith, M. (2013). A new vision for gender equality in
Europe, in Bettio, F., Platenga, J. and Smith, M. (eds) Gender and the European labour
market. London: Routledge.
Blau, F. D. and Kahn, L. M. (2013). Female Labor Supply: Why is the US Falling
Behind? American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings, 103 (3), 251-256. Avail-
able at http://ftp.iza.org/dp7140.pdf
Burchell, B., Hardy, V., Rubery, J. and Smith, M. (2014). A New Method to Understand
Occupational Gender Segregation in European Labour Markets. EU-report.
Burda, M., Hamermesh D., S., Weil , P., (2013). Total work and gender: facts and
possible explanations. Journal of Population Economics, 26: 239–261. Available at
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00148-012-0408-x
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) Household Activities in 2013, American Time

Use 2013. Washington D.C.:U.S, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm Ac-
cessed 27 September 2014.
Burri, S. and Schiek, D. (2009). Multiple Discrimination in EU Law. Brussels: Euro-

pean Commission.
Byerly, C. M. (2011). The Global Report on the Status of Women in News Media.
Washington, DC: International Women’s Media Foundation.
Byerly, C. M. (2013). The Palgrave International Handbook of Women and Journal-

ism. Palgrave.
Charles, N. and Mackay, F. (2013). Feminist politics and framing contests: Domestic
violence policy in Scotland and Wales. Critical Social Policy 33:593.
Chronholm, A. (2007). Fathers’ Experience of Shared Parental Leave in Sweden.

Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, v. 37, n. 2 9-25. Available at http://
rsa.revues.org/456?lang=en Accessed 26 October 2014.
Collins, Hill, P. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Council of Europe (2004). Promoting Gender Mainstreaming in Schools. Final report

of the Group of Specialists on Promoting Gender Mainstreaming in Schools. Stras-
bourg.
Council of Europe (2013). Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)1 of the Committee of

Ministers to member States on gender equality and media. (COE, 10 July 2013).
97
References
Council of the European Union. New European Pact for equality between women
and men for the period 2011 – 2020. (7349/11) Available at https://www.consilium.
europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/119630.pdf
Cudd, A. E. (1998). Strikes, Housework, and the Moral Obligation to Resist. Journal
of Social Philosophy, 29: 20-36.
Davies, R. and Pierre, G. (2005). The family gap in pay in Europe: A cross-country
study. Labour Economics, 12(4): 469-486.
de Beauvoir, S., (1996). The Coming of Age, (translated by P.O’Brian). NY: Norton & co.
de Gouges, O. (2003). Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne. Paris:

Mille et une nuits.
Djerf-Pierre, M. (2007). The Gender of Journalism, Nordicom Review, Jubilee Issue

(2007).
Dumper, H. (2004). Women Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK . London: ICAR.
Edwards, R. and Ribbens, J. (1998). Living on the edges: public knowledge, private
lives, personal experience in Ribbens, J and Edwards, R (1998) (eds.). Feminist Dil-
lemas in Qualitative Research. CA: Sage.
Edström, M. and Ragnhild M. (eds.) (2014). Making Change. Nordic Examples of

Working Towards Gender Equality in the Media. Nordicom. Available at http://hdl.
handle.net/2077/37362
EIGE (2013). Review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in the
EU Member States: Women and the Media: Advancing gender equality in decision-
making in media organisations.
EIGE (2014). Review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in
the EU Member States. Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of Gender
Equality. Available at http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/effectiveness-of-insti-
tutional-mechanisms-for-the-advancement-of-gender-equality
EIGE (2015). Beijing+20: The 4th Review of the Implementation of the Beijing Plat-
form for Action in the EU Member States.
Ejrnæs, M. and Kunze, A. (2013). Work and wage dynamics around childbirth. The
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(3): 856-877.
Elborgh-Woytek, K., Newiak, M., Kochhar, K., Fabrizio, S., Kpodar, K., Wingender, P., Cle-
ments, B., and Schwartz, G. (2013). Women, work, and the economy: macroeconomic
gains from gender equity. International Monetary Fund Staff Discussion Note (SDN
13/10). Available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2013/sdn1310.pdf
Elshtain, J. B. (1981). Public man, private women. Women in Social and Political

Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
98
References
England, P. (2005). Gender inequality in the labour market: the role of motherhood
and segregation. Project Muse, 264-288.
European Commission (1996). Incorporating equal opportunities for women and

men into all Community policies and actions. European Commission Communication
(COM(96)67 final).
European Commission, (2010). Staff Working Document. Mid-term review of the

Strategy for equality between women and men (2010-2015). SWD(2010) 339 fi-
nal. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/strategy_women_
men/131011_mid_term_review_en.pdf
European Commission (2010). Communication from the Commission of 5 March

2010. A Strengthen Commitment to Equality between Women and Men. COM(2010)
78 final.
European Commission (2010). Strategy for equality between women and men
2010-2015. COM(2010) 491 final.
European Commission (2013). The Gender Gap in Pensions in the EU. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/130530_pensions_en.pdf
European Commission,(2014a). Staff Working Document. Report on Progress on

equality between women and men in 2013. SWD(2014) 142 final. Available at
ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/swd_2014_142_en.pdf
European Commission (2014b). Gender Pay Gap stagnates at 16.4% across EU.
Luxembourg: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/unitedking-
dom/press/frontpage/2014/14_14_en.htm
European Commission (2014c). Memo. Questions and Answers: The Juncker Com-
mission. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-523_en.htm
European Commission (2014d). Boosting Equality Between Women and Men in

the European Union – Key Actions and Figures. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/140303_
factsheet_progress_en.pdf
European Commission (2015). Report on Equality between Women and Men

2014. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/annual_re-
ports/150324_annual_report_2014_web_en.pdf
European Commission (2015). Report on Progress on Equality between Women

and Men in 2014. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/an-
nual_reports/150304_annual_report_2014_web_en.pdf
European Council (1975).Council Directive (EEC) 75/17 of 10 February 1975 on the

approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the
principle of equal pay for men and women [1975] OJ L 045.
99
References
European Council (1976). Council Directive (EEC) 76/207 of 9 February 1976 on

the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men’ and women as re-
gards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working condi-
tions [1976] OJ L 39/40.
European Council (1992). Council Directive (EEC) 92/85 of 19 October 1992 on

the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are
breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of
Directive 89/391/EEC) ]1992] OJ L 348 / 1. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0085
European Parliament and European Council (2006). Directive (EC) 2006/54 of 5

July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal
treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
[2006] OJ L 204/23 .
European Parliament (2014a). Resolution of 4 February 2014 on Undocumented

women migrants in the European Union. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0068+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
European Parliament (2014b). Resolution of 25 February 2014 with recommenda-

tions to the Commission on combating Violence Against Women (2013/2004(INL)).
European Parliament, (2014c). A new Strategy for gender equality post 2015,
Compilation of in-depth analyses, Workshop 3 September 2014 for the Femm Com-
mittee. Brussels: European Parliament.
Eurostat (2014). Key Figures on Europe, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union.
Eurostat. Gender Statistics in Statistics explained; available at: http://ec.europa.eu/

eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_statistics
Fukada-Parr, S., Heintz, J. and Seguino, S. (2013), Critical Perspectives on Financial

and Economic Crises: Heterodox Macroeconomics Meets Feminism, Feminist Eco-
nomics 19(3): 4–31.
Global Media Monitoring Project (2010). Who Makes the News? Global Media Moni-
toring Project 2010, (WACC, World Association for Christian Communication).
Gender Bias Study Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

(1990). Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts. The New England
Law Review, 24 (Spring 1990).
Gresy, B. (2009). Petit traité contre le sexisme ordinaire. Paris: Albin Michel.
Grimshaw, D. (2011). What do we know about low-wage work and low-wage work-
ers? ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Series, No. 28.
Grimshaw, D. and Rubery, J. (2015). The Motherhood Pay Gap: A Review of the Is-
sues, Theories and International Evidence, Geneva: ILO.
100
References
Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J. (2007). Undervaluing Women’s Work. Manchester: Equali-

ties and Human Rights Commission. University of Manchester.
High Pay Centre (2014). Reform agenda. How to make top pay fairer. Available at
http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/mkt/london/Reform_Agenda_Final_Report.pdf
Hague, G. and Malos, E. (1998). Domestic Violence: Action for Change. Cheltenham:
New Clarion Press.
Harkness, S. and Waldfogel, J. (2003). The family gap in pay: Evidence from seven
industrialized countries. Research in Labor Economics 22: 369-414.
Haug, F. and Gschwandtner, U. (2006): Sternschnuppen. Zukunftserwartungen von

Schuljugend. Hamburg: Argument Verlag.
Hearn, J., Pringle, K., with members of Critical Research on Men in Europe
(2006/2009). European Perspectives on Men and Masculinities: National and Trans-
national Approaches. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hearn, J. (2015). Men of the World: Genders, Globalizations, Transnational Times.

London: Sage.
HM Treasury (2014). Autumn Financial Statement. Available at https://www.gov.

uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/382327/44695_Ac-
cessible.pdf
Hochschild, A. R. (2001). The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home
Becomes Work. Holt Paperbacks.
Holter, Ø. G. (2014). “What’s in it for men?”: Old Question, New Data, Men and Mas-
culinities. 17 (5): 515-548.
House of Commons (2010). House of Commons Library, 2010 June Budget - Direct
Taxes, benefits and tax credits - gender impact, July 2010. Available at http://www.
yvettecooper.com/women-bear-brunt-of-budget-cuts
Ida, K. (2013). LSE Feminists Economics Graduate Option Week 4 discussion blog.
ILO (2015). Global Wage Report 2014/15, Geneva: ILO.
INSEE (2009). Working hours survey. Available at: http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/

indicateur.asp?id=107
INSEE (2010). Working hours survey. Available at: http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/

indicateur.asp?id=107
Jackson, D. (2003), Beyond one-dimensional models of masculinity: a life-course

perspective on the processes of becoming masculine. Auto/Biography, 11(1 & 2):
71-87.
Jackson, D. (2015), Aging Masculinities: The Body, Sexuality and Social Lives.
Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
101
References
Jacquot, S. (2015). Emergence and Dismantling of the EU Gender Equality Policy:

Equality in the Name of the Market? London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Joshi, H., Paci, P. and Waldfogel, J. (1999). The wages of motherhood: Better or
worse? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23 (5): 543-564.
Karamessini, M. and Rubery, J. (eds.) (2013). Women and Austerity: the Economic
Crisis and the Future for Gender Equality. London: Routledge.
Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving Sexual Violence. Polity Press in assoc. with Basil. Cam-
bridge: Blackwell.
Kofman, E. (2012). Gender and skilled migration in Europe. Cuadernos de Relacio-

nes Laborales 30 (1): 63-89.
Krizsan, A., Skjeie H. and Squires J. (eds) (2012). Institutionalising Intersectionality:

The changing nature of European Equality Regimes. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Lagarde, C. (2014). Economic Inclusion and Financial Integrity—an Address to the

Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, London May 27th. Available at: http://www.imf.
org/external/np/speeches/2014/052714.htm
Lees (2002). Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial. The Women’s Press: London.
Leschke, J. and Jepsen, M. (2014). Is the economic crisis challenging the prevail-
ing gender regime? A comparison of Denmark, Germany, Slovakia, and the United
Kingdom. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, jxu013.
Lewis, J. (1997). Gender and welfare regimes: further thoughts. Social Politics:
International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 4(2): 160-177.
Lombard, N. (2013). Young people’s temporal and spatial accounts of gendered

violence. Sociology 47: 6 1136-1151.
Lombard, N. (2014). Because they’re a couple she should do what he says’: Jus-
tifications of Violence: Heterosexuality. Gender and Adulthood’ Journal of Gender
Studies.
Lombard, N. (forthcoming 2015). Young People’s Understandings of Men’s Violence

Against Women. Surrey: Ashgate.
Lorber, J. (ed.) (2005). Gender Inequality. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Luibheid, E. (2004). Heteronormativity and immigration scholarship: a call for

change. GLQ A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10(2): 227-235.
Mac Rae H. and Weiner E. The Persistent Invisibility of Gender in EU Policy. Eu-
ropean Integration Online Papers. Available at http://econpapers.repec.org/article/
erpeiopxx/
Markovits, E. K., Bickford, S. (2014). Constructing Freedom: Institutional to Chang-

ing the Gender Division of Labor. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 12 No. 81-99.
102
References
McCarry, M. (2010). Becoming a ‘Proper Man’: Young People’s Attitudes about inter-
personal Violence and Perceptions of Gender. Gender and Education, 22 (1)17-30.
McCarry, M. and Lombard, N. (forthcoming 2015). Same old story: Children and
Young People’s Continued Normalisation of Violence Against Women. Feminist Re-
view (special edition).
Messner, M. (1997). Politics of Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyers, M. K., Gornick, J. (2001). Gendering Welfare State Variation: Income Trans-
fers. Employment Supports, and Family Poverty, in Hirschmann. N. J.and Liebert,
U., Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in the United States and Europe. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Migration Observatory (2014). Love and Money: how immigration policy discrimi-
nates between families. Oxford: Migration Observatory Commentary.
Ministry of Education and Research (2014) Fact sheet on Gender Mainstreaming.

Available at http://www.government.se/sb/d/4096/a/125215
Mixon, B., (2008). Chore Wars: Men, Women and Housework. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Science Foundation. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.
jsp?cntn_id=111458 Accessed 27 September 2014.
Mooney, J. (2000). Gender, violence and the social order. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Moss, P. (ed.) (2014). 10th International Review of Leave Policies and Related Re-
search 2014. International Network on Leave Policies and Research. Available at
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews/2014_an-
nual_review_korr.pdf
Mushaben, J. M. (2001). Challenging the Maternalist Presumption: The Gender Poli-

tics of Welfare Reform in Germany and the United States, in Hirschmann. N. J., Li-
ebert, U., Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in the United States and Europe.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
O’Connell Davidson, J. (2008). Trafficking, modern slavery, and the human security
agenda. Human Security Journal 6: 8-15.
O’Connor, J. S., Orloff, A. S. and Shaver, S. (1999). States, Markets, Families: Gen-
der, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United
States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OECD (2013). Closing the Gender Gap. Act Now. OECD Publishing.
Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, Gender and the Family. Boston: Basic Books.
Pascall, G., Lewis, J. (2004). Emerging gender regimes and policies for gender
equality in a wider Europe, Journal of Social Policy, 33(3): 373-394.
Paseka, A. (2008a). Gender Mainstreaming in der Lehrer/innenbildung. Wider-

spruch, kreative Irritation, Lernchance? Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.
103
References
Paseka, A. (2008b). Political Will is not Enough. Results from the Evaluation of a
Pilot Scheme to Implement ‘Gender Mainstreaming’. In Grenz, S. et al. (eds) Gender
Equality in Higher Education. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 137-152.
Paseka, A. (2012). Die „Mehr-Männer-in-die-Grundschule“-Debatte aus professi-

ons-theoretischer Perspektive. In Hastedt, S. and Lange, S. (eds.) Männer und Grund-
schullehramt. Diskurse, Erkenntnisse, Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 83-100.
Perrons, D. and Plomien, A. (2013). Gender, Inequality and the Crisis: towards more
sustainable development, in Karamessini, M. and Rubery, J. (eds) Women and Aus-
terity. The Economic Crisis and the Future for Gender Equality. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends (2013). On Pay Gap, Millennial
Women Near Parity—For Now, Chap. 1, “Trends from Government Data,” and Chap.
5, “Balancing Work and Family,” (Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center, December
11 2013), http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/chapter-5-balancing-work-
and-family/ Accessed 27 September 2014.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge: Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.
Pope Francis (2014). Inequality is the root of social evil #Tweet. Reprinted in Win-
field, N. (2014). Pope Francis Calls For ‘Legitimate Redistribution’ Of Wealth To The
Poor.
The Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/

popefrancis-redistribution-wealth-_n_5294629.html
Reeves, P. (2011). Parental Leave: The Swedes are the Most Generous. National Public
Radio. Available at http://www.npr.org/blogs/babyproject/2011/08/09/139121410/
parental-leave-the-swedes-are-the-most-generous accessed 27 October2014.
Reich, K. (2005). Systemisch-konstruktivistische Pädagogik. Einführung in die

Grundlagen einer interaktionistisch-konstruktivistischen Pädagogik, 5. Auflage.
Weinheim + Basel: Beltz.
Rosaldo, M. Z., Lamphere, L., & Bamberger, J. (Eds.). (1974). Woman, culture, and
society. Stanford University Press.
Imray, L., & Middleton, A. (1983). Public and private: Marking the boundaries. The
public and the private, 12-27.
Scambor, E., Wojnicka, K., Bergmann, N., (eds.) (2013). The Study on the Role of Men
in Gender Equality. Brussels: European Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/
justice/genderequality/files/gender_pay_gap/130424_final_report_role_of_men_
en.pdf
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shrover, M. and Moloney, D. (2013). Gender, Migration and Categorisation: Making

distinctions between migrants in western Countries 1945-2010. Amsterdam: Am-
sterdam University Press.
104
References
Skinner, T., Hester, M. and Malos, E. (eds.) (2005). Researching Gender Violence:
Feminist Methodology in Action. Devon: Willan Publications.
Smith, M. and Villa, P. (2013). Recession and Recovery. Making gender equality
part of the solution, in in Bettio, F., Platenga, J. and Smith, M. (eds.) Gender and the
European labour market. London: Routledge.
Stanko, E.A. (1990). When precaution is normal: A Feminist critique of Crime Pre-
vention in Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (eds) Feminist perspectives in Criminology.
Buckingham Open University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers
Our Future. London: W. W. Norton and Company.
Svensson, E. and Edström, M. (forthcoming). Freedom of expression vs. gender

equality – conflicting values when regulating gender stereotypes in advertising.
Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap .
Taylor, H. (1970) Marriage and Divorce, in Mill, J. S. and Taylor, H., Essays on Sex
Equality, in Rossi, A. (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, H. (1970) The Enfranchisement of Women, in Mill, J. S. and Taylor, H., Es-
says on Sex Equality, in Rossi, A. (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The Economist (22 July 2014). Why Swedish Men Take So Much Paternity Leave.
Available at http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/econo-
mist-explains-15 Accessed 28 October 2014.
Treaty of the European Union (2007).
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009).
UNDP (2007). Fiscal space for what? Analytical issues from a human development
perspective. Available at http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/
publications/poverty-reduction/poverty-website/fiscal-space-for-what/FiscalSpace-
forWhat.pdf
UNESCO (2009). Promoting Gender Equality in Education. Bangkok.
UNESCO (2014). Bali Road Map: The Roles Of The Media In Realizing The Future We
Want For All. Unesco Global Media Forum.
UNESCO (2014).World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development.
UNHCR (1995). Sexual violence against refugees: Guidelines on prevention and

response. Geneva: Oﬃce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
UNHCR (1997) . Gender-related persecution: An analysis of recent trends. Interna-

tional Journal of Refugees 9: 79-113.
Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (2013). Public sector shock in Europe: between structural

reforms and quantitative adjustment, in D. Vaughan-Whitehead (ed.) Public Sector
Schock, ILO and Edward Elgar.
105
References
Veerle, M. (2011). Cooking, Caring, and Volunteering: Unpaid Work Around the
World. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers. Paris: Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecdilibrary.
org/docserver/download/5kghrjm8s142.pdf?expires=1411244066&id=id&accnam
e=guest&checksum=F0E0FD1ED576ECD6427BB04E83AF7670 Accessed 10 Octo-
ber 2014.
Walby, S. and Allen, J. (2004). Domestic Violence, sexual assault and stalking: find-
ings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study No. 276 London:
Home Office.
WBG (2014). The impact on women of Budget 2014 No recovery for women. Avail-
able at http://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FINAL-WBG-2014-budget-
response.pdf
Williams, F. (2014). Making Connections Across the Transnational Political Econo-

my of Care, in Anderson, B. and Shutes, I. Migration and Care Labour: Theory, Policy
and Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wirth, A., Defilippis, C. and Therkelsen, J. with the assistance of Research Associ-
ates Adil, S., Phair, C. and Benavides, B. (2014). Asylum Access and the Refugee
Work Rights. Coalition Annual Report 2014. Available at http://asylumaccess.org/
AsylumAccess/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FINAL_Global-Refugee-Work-Rights-
Report-2014_Interactive.pdf
Wollstonecraft, M. (1992). A Vindication of the Rights of Women, in Brody, M. (ed.).

New York: Penguin Books.
World Economic Forum (2014). The Global Gender Gap Report, Geneva, Switzer-
land: World Economic Forum. Available at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR14/
GGGR_CompleteReport_2014.pdf
Wroblewski, A. and Paseka, A. (2009). Vertiefende Analyse der Umsetzung von Ge-
KoS. Ergebnisse aus Fallstudien an Schulen. Unveröffentlichter Endbe.
106
Contributors
Contributors
Bridget Anderson is Professor of Migration and Citizenship at the University of Ox-

ford, and Research Director of the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS).
Her interests include citizenship, nationalism, immigration enforcement (including
‘trafficking’), and care labour. Her most recent authored book is Us and Them? The
Dangerous Politics of Immigration Controls (OUP, 2013); Anderson B. and Shutes I.,
(2014), Care and Migrant Labour: Theory, Policy and Politics, Palgrave. Although now
an academic Bridget started her working life in the voluntary sector working with
migrant domestic workers, and she has retained an interest in domestic labour and
migration She has worked closely with migrants’ organisations, trades unions and
legal practitioners at local, national and international level.
Birgitta Åseskog is an independent gender equality expert. She retired from her
position as a Senior Advisor at the Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality in
Sweden in 2010 – after 20 years in the governmental offices. During the late 1990s
she managed a gender mainstreaming project for the Nordic Council of Ministers.
She has also participated in gender mainstreaming expert groups in the Council of
Europe, the United Nations, and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).
From 2001 until 2005 she worked in the Gender Equality Unit of the European
Commission.
Marianne Bertrand is Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of

Chicago Booth School of Business. She is a Research Fellow at NBER, CEPR, and IZA.
She received the 2012 Society of Labor Economists’ Rosen Prize for Outstanding
Contributions. She received a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics and a Master’s De-
gree in Econometrics from the Université Libre de Bruxelles respectively in 1991
and 1992, and earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Harvard University in 1998.
Her research covers: labour economics, corporate finance, development economics,
and gender equality. Her recent publications include: Bertrand M., Kamenica E., Pan
J., ‘Gender Identity and Relative Income within Households’, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, forthcoming; Bertrand M., ‘New Perspectives on Gender’ in O. Ashenfelter
and D. Card (eds.) (2011), Handbook of Labor Economics (Elsevier B.V.); Bertrand M.,
Goldin C., Katz L.F. (2010), ‘Dynamics of the Gender Gap for Young Professionals in
the Financial and Corporate Sectors’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics.
Francesca Bettio is professor of economics at the University of Siena,Italy. She

graduated from the University of Bologna and holds a Master of Science from the
London School of Economics and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Cam-
bridge, UK. Her main areas of expertise are labour economics, population studies
and gender economics. As an expert on female employment she has a long record
of collaborating with the European Commission, and she is currently lead coordina-
tor of the European Network of Experts on Gender Equality (ENEGE: www.enege.eu).
107
Contributors
Recent publications include: Betti G., Bettio F., Georgiadis T., Tinios P. (2015), Unequal
Ageing in Europe, Palgrave Macmillan; Bettio F., Plantenga J. and Smith M. (2013),
Gender and the European Labour Market Routledge; Bettio F., Corsi M., D’Ippoliti C.,
Lyberaki A., Samek Lodovici M. and Verashchagina A., (2013) The Impact of the Eco-
nomic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies,
Publications Office of the European Union; Bettio F., Tinios P., Betti G., (2013) The
Gender Gap in Pensions, Publications Office of the European Union 2013.
Jacki Davis is a leading commentator and analyst on European Union affairs. She
is an experienced journalist, speaker and moderator of high-level events both in
Brussels and in EU national capitals, the editor of many publications, a regular
broadcaster on television and radio news programmes, and a Senior Adviser to the
European Policy Centre think tank. Jacki has been based in Brussels for 23 years,
and was previously Communications Director of the European Policy Centre; editor-
in-chief of E!Sharp, a magazine on the EU launched in 2001; and launch editor of
European Voice, a Brussels-based weekly newspaper on EU affairs owned by The
Economist Group, from 1995-2000.
Maria Edström is a PhD and Senior Lecturer in journalism at the University of

Gothenburg (Sweden). She has a background as a journalist, primarily in radio and
print, and she is also a cofounder of the Swedish media watch group ‘Everything
is Possible’. She is currently involved in two research projects: ‘Market and Demo-
cracy-driven Freedom of Expression’ and ‘Comparing Gender and Media Equality
across the Globe’. Since 2007 she has been a member of the Swedish Broadcasting
Commission. Her publications include: Edström M., Mølster R. (eds.) (2014), Making
change. Nordic Examples of Working Towards Gender Equality in the Media (Nordi-
com); Svensson E.-M., Edström M. (2014), ‘Freedom of expression vs. gender equa-
lity - conflicting values when regulating gender stereotypes in advertising’, Tidsskrift
for Rettsvitenskap; Edström M., ‘Sweden: Women Reach Parity but Gender Troubles
Persist’ in Byerly C.M. (ed.) (2013), The Palgrave International Handbook of Women
and Journalism (Palgrave).
Janne Fardal Kristoffersen, born in 1970, has been the major of the Municipa-
lity of Lindesnes (Norway) since 2011. She is representing the conservative party
called ‘Høyre’. She was deputy major from 2003 to 2011, and substitute member
of the Norwegian Parliament from 2009 to 2013. In 2007 she received a prize for
her engagement in gender equality. In 2008-2011 she participated in an EU-funded
project between Spain and Norway on the issue of balance among personal, family,
and professional life. Furthermore, she participated in an EU conference in Slovenia
in 2014, talking about how to include gender equality in the municipal agenda, and
especially her personal experience as a woman holding a high-level political position.
Lenita Freidenvall is Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the Stockholm Univer-

sity. She served as Committee Secretary of the Committee on the Labour Market
of the Swedish Parliament (2009-2014) and as Gender Expert in the Speaker’s
Reference Group of Gender Equality Issues of the Swedish Parliament (2009-
2014). She has published widely on political representation, candidate selection,
and gender quotas, including: Dahlerup D., Freidenvall L. (2005), ‘Quotas as a Fast
108
Contributors
Track to Equal Representation of Women’, International Feminist Journal of Politics;

Dahlerup D., Freidenvall L. (2010), ‘Judging Gender Quotas: Predictions and Results’,
Policy & Politics; Freidenvall L., Hallonsten H. (2013), ‘Why not Corporate Gender
Quotas in Sweden?’, Representation; Outshoorn J., Dudová R., Prata A., Freidenvall
L. (eds.) (2015), European Women’s Movements and Body Politics. The Struggle for
Autonomy (Palgrave).
Ignacio Giménez-Nadal is a lecturer in the Economic Analysis Department at the

University of Zaragoza (Spain), where he obtained his PhD in Economics in 2010. He
is also a member of the Institute for Biocomputation and Physics of Complex Sy-
stems (BIFI) of the University of Zaragoza. His main research area is microecono-
mics and, particularly, household and population economics, regional economics,
and well-being, with specific interests in gender differences in the time devoted to
commuting, housework, childcare, and leisure. His works have been published in se-
veral journals, among which European Economic Review, Demography, and Journal
of Population Economics. Recent research includes: Giménez-Nadal J.I., Molina
J.A. (2013), ‘Parents’ Education as a Determinant of Educational Childcare Time’,
Journal of Population Economics; Giménez-Nadal J.I., Sevilla A. (2012), ‘Trends in
Time Allocation: A Cross-country Analysis’, European Economic Review.
Brigitte Grésy is Secretary General of the High Council on Gender Equality of Wo-
men and Men at Work, a body bringing together social partners, qualified experts,
and the public administration, and dealing with all legislative and policy documents
concerning the labour market and the elimination of discrimination against women.
She is currently working on sexism at work and on the indicators to be set up to en-
sure that companies bargain on equality in the workplace. In the past she served as
Director of the Women’s Rights Service and as Cabinet Director in charge of equality.
Her publications include several reports to the ministers, the latest of which deals
with sexism at work, as well as two books: Grésy B. (2008), Petit traité contre le
sexisme ordinaire (Albin Michel); Grésy B. (2014), La vie en rose, pour en découdre
avec les stéréotypes (Albin Michel).
Damian Grimshaw is Professor of Employment Studies and Director of the Euro-

pean Work and Employment Research Centre (EWERC) at the Manchester Business
School, University of Manchester. His research interests include women’s position
in the labour market (particularly with respect to pay equity and precarious em-
ployment), the dynamics of low pay and European comparative analysis. 2015-
16 projects are funded by the ILO (Prospects for middle-income workers) and the
EC (Reducing precarious work in Europe through social dialogue). Recent publica-
tions on gender equality include a report for the International Labour Organization:
Grimshaw D. and Rubery J. (2015) The Motherhood Pay Gap: A Review of the Issues,
Theory and International Evidence, an article in the Cambridge Journal of Econo-
mics: Rubery J. and Grimshaw D. ‘The 40-year pursuit of equal pay: a case of con-
stantly moving goalposts’ (2015) and a report for the UK’s Equalities Commission:
Grimshaw D., Cartwright J., Keizer A. and Rubery J.(2014), Coming Clean: Procure-
ment and Contract Practices in Commercial Cleaning.
109
Contributors
Jeff Hearn is Guest Research Professor in the Faculty of Humanities and Social
Sciences, based in Gender Studies, Örebro University, Sweden; Professor of Socio-
logy, University of Huddersfield, UK; Professor of Management and Organization,
Hanken School of Economics, Finland; and Fellow of the Academy of the Social
Sciences, UK. He was formerly Professor of Gender Studies, Linköping University,
Sweden, and Research Professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences, Manchester Uni-
versity, UK, based in Social Policy. Current research focuses on gender, sexuality, vio-
lence, men, organizations and transnational processes. He is co-editor of Routledge
Advances in Feminist Studies and Intersectionality book series. His latest books
are Hearn J., Blagojević M. and Harrison K., (2013) Rethinking Transnational Men
Routledge; Hearn J., Lämsä A. M. et al (2015), Opening Up New Opportunities for
Gender Equality Work, Edita; Hearn J. (2015), Men of the World: Genders, Globaliza-
tions, Transnational Times, Sage.
Nancy J. Hirschmann is Professor of Political Science at The University of Penn-

sylvania, where she is Director of the Program on Gender, Sexuality and Women’s
Studies and the Alice Paul Center for Research on Gender, Sexuality and Women.
She previously taught at Cornell University. Her books include Gender, Class, and
Freedom in Modern Political Theory; The Subject of Liberty: Toward a Feminist The-
ory of Freedom, which won the 2004 Victoria Schuck Award from the APSA for
the best book on women and politics; Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in
the United States and Europe; and Civil Disabilities: Citizenship, Membership and
Belonging. She has published articles on domestic violence, Islamic veiling, and di-
sability in books as well as journals such as Constellations, Political Theory, and
The American Political Science Review. She has held fellowships from the Institute
for Advanced Study, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American
Council of Learned Societies.
Johanna Kantola is Academy Research Fellow in Gender Studies at the University

of Helsinki where she also holds a permanent position as Senior Lecturer. Her rese-
arch focuses on gender and political parties, gender and the European Union, gender
equality policies, gender equality agencies, representation, and intersectionality, and
has appeared in a wide range of academic journals. Her publications include: Kanto-
la J. (2010), Gender and the European Union (Palgrave); Kantola J. (2006), Feminists
Theorize the State (Palgrave); Outshoorn, J., Kantola J. (eds.) (2007), Changing State
Feminism (Palgrave); Waylen G., Celis K., Kantola J., Laurel Weldon S. (eds.) (2013),
The Oxford Handbook on Gender and Politics (Oxford University Press). Furthermore,
as an editor she has published two edited volumes in Finnish, and a special issue
of International Feminist Journal of Politics and Party Politics. She is the editor of
Palgrave Macmillan’s Gender and Politics Book Series with Sarah Childs. Her current
research funded by the Academy of Finland focuses on gender, power, and political
parties in Finland and the EU.
Trudie Knijn is professor of Interdisciplinary Social Science (Utrecht University) and

visiting professor of the University of Johannesburg (South Africa), Centre for Social
Development in Africa. She coordinates the research programme ‘Social Policy and
Intervention Studies’ (SOPINS). She was co-chair of ESPAnet (2007-2014) and is
member of the executive board of the FP7 research programme ‘bEUcitizen’, co-
coordinating work package 9 on ‘Gender and Generations’. She is one of the Princi-
110
Contributors
pals of the ORA programme ‘Governing “new social risks”’ (PolChi), and Co-Principal
of a research on HIV/AIDS in South Africa. Her fields of expertise are: comparative
welfare state studies, gender relations, family policy, care, citizenship, and activa-
tion. Her recent publications include: Knijn T. (ed.) (2012), Work, family policies and
the transition to adulthood in Europe (Palgrave); Le Bihan B., Martin C., Knijn T. (eds.)
(2013), Work and Care under Pressure. Care Arrangements in Europe (Amsterdam
University Press).
Andrea Krizsan is Research Fellow at the Center for Policy Studies of the Central
European University, Budapest. She holds a PhD in Political Science from the Central
European University. She worked in the European comparative research projects
‘Quality of Gender+ Equality Policies in Europe’ (QUING) and ‘Multiple Meanings
of Gender Equality’ (MAGEEQ). She provided consultancy services to the European
Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of Europe on gender equality
and gender-based violence issues. Her research concerns understanding progressive
policy change on gender equality, gender-based violence, ethnic discrimination, and
intersectionality. Her recent project analyses domestic violence policy reforms in five
Central and Eastern European countries. She published in Social Politics, European
Journal of Women Studies, Violence against Women, European Integration Online
Papers, and Policy Studies, and edited a volume on ethnic monitoring (2001). Her
works also include: Krizsan A., Skjeie H., Squires J. (eds.) (2012), Institutionalizing
Intersectionality and the Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes (Palgrave).
Ulrike Liebert is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Euro-
pean Studies at the University of Bremen (Germany). With a PhD in Social and Politi-
cal Science from the European University Institute (Italy) she has also taught at the
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain) and the Cornell University (Ithaca, USA).
Her research focuses on gender equality in EU governance, European economic and
social constitutionalism, European citizenship, civil society and the public sphere,
the Eurocrisis, and the democratic Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) reform. Re-
cent publications include: Liebert U., Gattig A., Evas T. (eds.) (2013), Democratising
the EU from Below? Citizenship, Civil Society and the Public Sphere (Ashgate); Lie-
bert U., Trenz H.J. (eds.) (2012), The New Politics of European Civil Society (Routled-
ge); Schiek D., Liebert U., Schneider H. (eds.) (2011), European Economic and Social
Constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon (CUP).
Nancy Lombard is a Reader in Sociology and Social Policy at Glasgow Caledonian

University. She is also Associate Director at the Centre for Research in Families and
Relationships in Edinburgh and a founding member and coordinator of the Gender
Based Violence Research Network (GBVRN). She is also a member of the Scottish
Parliament Cross Party Group on Violence Against Women. Her research interests
include men’s violence against women, particularly domestic abuse; violence pre-
vention; methods of working with children and young people and gender. Before
returning to academia, she worked in the third sector. She has been a volunteer, re-
searcher and activist within the violence against women movement for the past 20
years. She has written widely on the topics of gender, children and men’s violence
against women. Her monograph Young People’s Understandings of Men’s Violence
Against Women will be published by Ashgate in June 2015
111
Contributors
Annelie Nordström has been the President of Kommunal, the Swedish Municipal
Workers’ Union, since 2010. It is the largest trade union in Sweden with more than
500 000 members, of whom 80% are women. Last year she was elected President
of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU). She has been active in
the trade union movement since 1974 at different levels. She has also been a poli-
tician at local and regional level in Sweden for 10 years. The Swedish Government
recently appointed her to the office of chair of a committee tasked with analysing
future challenges in the Swedish labour market, and with submitting possible so-
lutions and policy proposals. She is a board member of various organisations in-
cluding the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO), Public Services International
(PSI), and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), and sits in the Board of
Directors of the Folksam insurance company.
Angelika Paseka is Full Professor of Educational Science at the University of Ham-

burg. She holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Vienna and a post-doc
lecture qualification in Educational Science. Currently she is council member in the
Austrian Society for Research and Development in Education (ÖFEB) and the Eu-
ropean Educational Research Association (EERA). She is co-editor of Zeitschrift für
Bildungsforschung. Her current research interests are: teachers’ professionalism,
family-school partnership, school development, gender socialisation, gender main-
streaming policies in education, and qualitative methods in educational research.
Recent publications in English include: Schrittesser I., Gerhartz-Reiter S., Paseka A.
(2014), ‘Innovative Learning Environments. About Traditional and New Patterns of
Learning’, European Educational Research Journal; Paseka A., Schrittesser I., Beyond
Measurement: Some Crucial Questions on Research About Professional Competen-
ces of Teachers in Boufoy-Bastick B. (ed.) (2012), The International Handbook of
Cultures of Professional Development for Teachers (Analytrics).
Diane Perrons is Director of the Gender Institute and Professor of Economic Ge-
ography and Gender Studies at the London School of Economics. Her research
focuses on the gender dimensions of economic inequality and the social and spatial
implications of economic change paying particular attention to economic crises,
austerity and socially sustainable recovery. She is currently co-directing the LSE
Commission on Gender, Inequality and Power and a member of the UK Women’s
Budget Group. Her recent publications include: ‘Gendering the inequality debate’,
forthcoming in Gender and Development; ‘Gendering inequality: a note on Piketty’s
Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, British Journal of Sociology 2014; Gender, Mi-
gration and Domestic Work. Masculinities, Male Labour & Fathering in the UK and
USA, with Kilkey M. and Plomien A., Palgrave, 2013.
Silvia Sansonetti is a gender equality expert with reference to working conditions,

antidiscrimination, and social policies. She holds an MA in Socio-demographic Sta-
tistics and a European Ph.D. in Socio-economic Sciences from Sapienza University
of Rome. She has coordinated many European projects on labour market, social
inclusion, gender equality, and social issues. She served as the country expert for
Italy in expert networks of the European Commission (SEN and EGGE) and is curren-
tly contributing to the management of the European Network of Experts in Gender
Equality (ENEGE). Among her publications: Casavola P., Rosselli A., Sansonetti S.
(2010), Evaluation of the European Social Fund’s support to Gender Equality (for
112
Contributors
the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and

Inclusion); Liebig B. and Sansonetti S., Career Paths in Vianello M. and Moore G. (eds.)
(2004), Women and Men in Political and Business Elites. A Comparative Study in the
Industrialized World (Sage).
Hege Skjeie has been professor of Political Science at the University of Oslo since
2000. She teaches equality policies, and is currently associated professor at Core,
a Norwegian multidisciplinary research centre on equality and labour market po-
licies. She has advised the Norwegian Government on equality policies in several
capacities, and chaired the Gender Equality Commission from 2010 to 2012, a
governmental commission mandated to investigate and propose gender equality
policies from an intersectional perspective. From 2006 to 2010 she was member of
the first Norwegian Equality Tribunal, i.e. the board that monitors all the Norwegian
equality legislation. Her research interests include: intersectionality, religious plura-
lism, equality institutions, comparative equality law, and international human rights.
Her works include: Krizsan A., Skjeie H., Squires J. (eds.) (2012), Intersectionality: the
Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes (Palgrave).
Platon Tinios, is an economist, assistant professor at the University of Piraeus. He

studied at the Universities of Cambridge (MA, Ph.D) and Oxford (M.Phil). He served
as Special Advisor to the Prime Minister of Greece from 1996 to 2004, specializing
in pensions and the economic analysis of social policy. He was a member of the
EU Social Protection Committee from 2000 to 2004. He has been involved in the
Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) since 2004. His research
interests include pensions, ageing populations, social policy, labour economics and
public finance. He has taken an especial interest in the gender aspects of ageing,
leading to a 2013 EU report on the gender gap in pensions. His current research
focuses on the characteristics of the ‘informal’ family-based social protection me-
chanism and its role in the Greek crisis. His most recent publication is: Betti G., Bettio
F., Georgiadis T., Tinios P. (2015), Unequal Ageing in Europe, Palgrave Macmillan.
113
European Commission
Visions for Gender Equality
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2015
ISBN 978-92-79-47777-5
doi: 10.2838/00811
DS-02-15-320-EN-N
doi: 10.2838/00811

Vision Report en

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vision Report en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vision Report en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visions for

FGB - Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini IRS - Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale

Via Solferino 32 Via XX Settembre 24

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice

Francesca Bettio and Silvia Sansonetti (editors)

Language editor: Jacki Davis

Equality, freedom and the sexual division of labour  12

Challenging stereotypes and every-day sexism 

Part III: Governance and communication for gender equality 67

Gender equality governance and tools: time to move up a gear 

AT Austria FR France NL Netherlands

Pay and income inequality

1 An EU-wide work permit for highly-skilled migrants

A multi-faceted ‘intersectional’ approach to gender equality

Long-standing calls to challenge traditional gender divides highlight the need to

Thanks to successful implementation of the quotas initiative, equality in decision-

Governance and communication

Part I. New frontiers: what

Equality, freedom and the sexual division of labour

to the beginning of the ‘second wave’ of feminism in the US and Europe?

Gender equality in times of inequality, crisis and austerity: towards

Gender equality in times of inequality, crisis and austerity

Priorities for the future

The role of the European Union

Box 1. Bringing gender to the negotiation of fiscal space

“Fiscal space is the available financing, designated by policy choices, to provide

A renewed focus on gender

Both left- and right-wing parties must pay attention

Good mothers can also have a full-time job!

Every municipality must have an equality plan

If a municipality wants to be attractive and attract new inhabitants, to entice young

Gender equality is a topic for men

We have to create a stronger academic environment to address gender equality is-

Men as a target for action in gender equality policies

How can gender equality be achieved if it is only up to women to change? Achieving

Costs, difference, and privilege

Bringing the strands together

The impact of inequalities on men

thorough-going gender equality. This means opposing the intensification of neolibe-

Gendering the ‘non-gendered’

The transnational dimension

Contradictions and futures

Part II: What have we

Challenging stereotypes and every-day sexism

haviours, and bound by formal ‘rules’ they cannot infringe: ‘I am a man/woman, so I

Four levers for equality

Equal pay for work of equal value

Issue 1: women’s work is undervalued

Academic analyses, as well as legal decisions, demonstrate that failures to achieve

• Valuation: women’s skills may be under-valued where grading structures are

Issue 2: neoliberal fiscal policy hurts women most

Box 2. Effects of cuts in public spending

Dramatic public spending cuts were imposed in Hungary during 2006-2010. A

10 See Vaughan-Whitehead (2013), in particular Table 1.2.

Issue 3: levelling down wages is an unwelcome route to gender equality

Box 3. Gender pay gap and real wages in UK

Equality, freedom and the sexual division of labour 12

Challenging stereotypes and every-day sexism

Part III: Governance and communication for gender equality 67

Gender equality governance and tools: time to move up a gear