Gender inequality is explicitly defined as a problem in policy texts because it constitutes an obstacle to economic growth and social cohesion. Gender inequality is understood as an efficiency problem; it is a problem for the functioning of the economic system. Gender inequality is also defined as a problem because it hinders democracy and human rights. Gender inequality is a moral problem; it is a problem for the functioning of the democratic system.
It is important to make clear that how gender inequality is defined in documents and interviews, and what it is considered to be a problem for, is one thing. And what the ‘problem’ of gender (in)equality is represented to be in texts is another, different thing. To unveil that representation, it is necessary to identify not only the explicit definitions presented in texts but also the proposed solutions; the understandings, meanings, assumptions, and presuppositions lying behind those proposed solutions; the categorisations in use; and the context in which discourses are produced.
Understandings of gender (in)equality as value (the social dimension) and instrument (the economy) are at work in constructing the ‘problem’ of gender (in)equality. The proposed solutions find justification in the value or moral argument while emphasising the instrumentality of gender policies. It is not surprising that the most recurring representation of the ‘problem’ of gender (in)equality in policy texts at the EU general level is the representation of gender inequality as women’s lack of participation in the labour market or women’s lack of economic independence. Here the argument of gender
146 As an example of the diversity of the feminist project here in Western Europe alone, the magazine FEM 21 that the EWL published on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, ‘exploring the meaning of feminism in the 21st Century’, is very interesting (available at http://womenlobby.org/spip.php?article651&lang=en, accessed in March 2011). Of particular interest are the different visions of feminism that are presented in reports and interviews and are also represented by pictures participating in the ‘EWL Photo Competition 2010’. It is worth taking a look at the three first prizes. Although feminism includes diverse experiences, its backdrop can still be characterised as Ann Snitow did more than 20 years ago: as a divide or tension between sameness and difference (Snitow 1989, quoted in Scott 2011: 39).
equality being an instrument plays an important role, but the idea of gender equality as a value or human right is also cardinal. The representation of the problem of gender (in)equality as women’s lack of participation in the labour market contains both arguments: the usefulness of women’s labour and the value of women’s economic independence.
It is argued that women’s employment participation has to be encouraged by training, flexible work arrangements, and care facilities, while the formulation of policies that may encourage a more equal sharing of domestic and care work between women and men is almost entirely out of discussion.
The goal of ‘reconciliation’ is to fully utilise women’s labour force; it is not a more equal distribution of domestic and care work within the family. Men’s role in the unequal division of domestic labour is not properly discussed but is taken into account only as a question of attitudes or ‘awareness raising’.
Drawing on Esping-Andersen’s ideas, what is needed is a total rethinking of the ‘problem’ of balance between work and family life from a more child-oriented perspective that challenges the gender order by making men take more responsibility in the share of domestic and care work (2002, quoted in Bacchi 2009: 159). This needs to be done together with a revaluation of care work as central to society. The transformation of the gender structure as it is requires, among other things, rethinking the place of care and its relation to paid labour. Caring for the young and the elderly cannot continue to be considered a ‘no-job’, unproductive, and the natural (and therefore ‘for free’) thing for women to do. (See, for instance, Franck & Spehar 2010;
Sevenhuijsen 1998.)
It is important to stress, connecting to what has been said in chapter 2, that the institutional place of EU gender equality policy is located within the issue area of employment (i.e. DG Employment). The emphasis on the labour market in policy formulations on gender may be produced to a great extent by the fact that gender questions are dealt with within DG Employment and that the monitoring and evaluation of gender mainstreaming as well is coordinated by DG Employment. On the other hand, there have been some organisational changes, and the future does not look very promising for gender equality and gender mainstreaming strategy in particular. In January 2011, programmes and actions concerning gender equality were transferred from DG Employment to the newly created DG for Justice.147 It is to be seen how this organisational change impacts problem representations. So far, this change can be seen as part of the EU anti-discrimination strategy that, as said
147 DG for Justice was created on July 2010 and consists of four directorates: Civil Justice, Criminal Justice, Fundamental Rights and Union Citizenship, and Equality. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/mission/index_en.htm, accessed in January 2012.
above, may entail a return to an approach more oriented to equal treatment (Lombardo & Verloo 2009: 489).
The introduction of gender as a concept and gender mainstreaming as strategy could be seen as a promise for a more structural analysis of gender inequality. Conceptually, gender mainstreaming implies the transformation of the gender structure (Rees 1998; Walby 2011), while including the idea of difference. However, there is a logical disconnection between gender mainstreaming as a concept and representations and discourses presented in policy documents within the context of the mainstreaming approach. There is no clear definition of gender. At the same time, the category of women has been brought back into gender work. ‘Gender’ and ‘women’ are very often used as synonymous. And, most frequently, women are portrayed either as resources for the economy (potential or wasted) or as victims in need of especial policy attention. There are feminist voices and even feminist discourses (represented by the EWL) trying to challenge these dominant ideas and advance women as active agents. But there is no analysis concerning the structural causes of gender inequality beyond stereotypes and role expectations. In most texts, role expectations and stereotypes are understood as the basis of gender inequality, and thus equal treatment legislation and specific measures such as education and training are believed to be key in promoting equality between women and men. The binary distinction male/female (Bacchi 2009; Scott 1988) remains as both starting and ending point in the analysis.
Further, the definition of gender mainstreaming as a dual-track approach often leads to confusion: If gender mainstreaming means that gender is overall and everywhere, why is it that we need specific measures for the advancement of women? Or if we still have specific actions and programmes targeted to women, why would we need to spend time and resources in mainstreaming gender? These questions have implications for the practice of mainstreaming. The fundamental confusion underlying them revolves around the understanding of gender as meaning women. Gender is understood as a noun (Eveline & Bacchi 2005), and the role of men and of power relations in the process of doing gender are both silenced. Gender needs to be understood as a verb (Connell 1987; Eveline & Bacchi 2005). Gender is a social structure and a social process, and it is not a category that can be filled out by ‘male’
or ‘female’. It is certainly much more difficult to draw attention to structures and processes while formulating policies, much simpler to refer to women or to gender as a category as if gender were an issue of concern.
I must say that structural questions are recognised in some of the analysed texts. As one of the interviewees says, there is sometimes a ‘good analysis of
the situation’ (see above). The very concept of gender mainstreaming involves the understanding of gender inequality as lying in structures and practices. As I showed in chapter 1, gender policies have significantly changed from a focus on equal pay to become a central element of what is called the European social model. That said, the definition of gender equality as a means to economic growth, employment, social cohesion, and competitiveness has emptied the very content of gender equality and gender mainstreaming itself. The cause of gender inequality does not lie in the gender structure, as gender mainstreaming supposes, but in women’s lack of participation in the labour market, women’s lack of education and training (and women’s lack of political involvement, see chapter 5). The individualisation of an otherwise structural problem results in blaming women for their destiny.
I have pointed to some general tendencies of change that can be identified in discourses. These tendencies have an impact on discourses and therefore can be identified in them; that is, general trends shaping discourses and being shaped by discourses.148 These tendencies are individualisation (with its wording of ‘choices’ and ‘opportunities’) and commodification (expressed in a language of ‘competence’ and ‘skills’ and related terms such as ‘training’).
Further, related in some way to these tendencies and also to the lack of a clear conceptualisation of gender and gender mainstreaming, there is the question of the technocratisation of policy practice and, more specifically, the
‘tendency toward “technocratization” of gender mainstreaming’ with its disproportionate emphasis on tools and techniques over conceptual policy frameworks (Daly 2005: 436); Daly actually argues that the tendency towards technocratisation can be attributed to ‘lack of clarity in definition and conceptualization’ (ibid.: 439).
Gender mainstreaming is without doubt too complex a concept to put into action in policy-making, which requires prompt outcomes. The need to reach determined (and urgent) objectives related to the economy (clearly expressed in the Lisbon targets) combines with the growing technocratisation of policy practice. Gender equality is made marketable and gender mainstreaming is sold as a useful tool. In this context, gender mainstreaming stays as a general (and nice) declaration of principles, while the focus remains on specific measures targeted to women. And most of the time the analysis is so individualised that the whole point of gender mainstreaming is missed. This individualisation becomes clear through looking at the kind of solutions
148 This has to do with the political effects of discourses on social relations, social identities, and knowledge (see chapter 3). Discourses and also representations contribute to processes of social change. At the same time, tendencies of change can be identified in discourses. These tendencies are (re)produced in discourse.
proposed, which focuses on women’s lack of participation and revolves around a language of ‘choices’, ‘opportunities’, and ‘skills’. Has gender mainstreaming led to a cul-de-sac from which the only way out seems to be bringing the category of ‘women’ back in, returning to a focus on women’s issues? It seems that gender mainstreaming has become a cul-de-sac of meaning through processes of technocraticisation, individualisation, and commodification, resulting in a return to ‘women’ in policy documents dealing with gender questions.