In the Frame: Women and the Discursive Construction of Gender Equality in Theory and Practice

Johnson, Carol

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64816-8_1

Carol Johnson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2860-7045⁴

Part of the book series: Gender and Politics ((GAP))

284 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter makes a case for why the history of the development of gender equality policy in Australia, as a multicultural, settler-colonial society situated in the Asia-Pacific, is of broader international significance. It highlights Australia’s innovative contributions to gender equality, from its early granting of women’s suffrage and the right to stand for parliament, to the development of feminist policy advisory structures and being the first country to introduce gender responsive budgeting. Yet, Australian governments also tried to meld social democracy and neoliberalism (long before Tony Blair) with major consequences for women that the Albanese Labor government has begun to address. The chapter provides necessary background, discussing different conceptions of gender equality internationally and the breadth of relevant policy issues requiring study from political economy to intersectionality. It outlines a range of feminist methodological approaches used while arguing that an analysis of gendered discursive policy framing is particularly useful for identifying both the factors influencing policy and the flaws in policy that can result. In particular, discursive policy framing analysis identifies the need to reimagine gender equality policy frameworks, given that gender equality policy has all too often been incorporated into pre-existing frameworks designed to address other issues.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF

Keywords

This book analyses the politics of federal government gender equality policy and issues in Australia from the reforming 1970s Whitlam government to the current day. It emphasises that gender equality policy needs to be situated within a broader politics, including politicians’ electoral strategies and ideological/discursive frameworks. The book also situates Australia in an international context, identifying policy innovations and influences while drawing attention to the wider relevance of the Australian experience. It argues that analysing the history of the politics of Australian federal gender equality policy throws an important light on some of the ongoing deficiencies of those policies. In particular, a historical analysis highlights how those policies have often been shaped by, and incorporated within, pre-existing policy frameworks that were not originally designed to challenge gender inequality. The book identifies gendered biases and flaws that have arisen as a result and that continue to the present day. The analysis concludes by discussing future policy challenges facing Australian women and what a reimagined policy agenda, driven by the needs of women in all their intersectional diversity, would look like.

In 2022, the newly elected Australian Labor government of Anthony Albanese produced a detailed Women’s Budget Statement as part of its overall budget process. As we shall see, such budget statements, originally introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1984, constituted one of the many feminist gender equality innovations which Australian governments have introduced internationally. The Statement affirmed that: “The Government is committed to Australia re-emerging as a global leader in gender equality”.^{Footnote 1} However, it painted a grim picture of the position of Australian women noting that: “Gender inequality is holding Australia back. In 2022, Australia was ranked 43rd of 146 countries in the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index”.^{Footnote 2} Yet, Australia had been at number 24 in 2013 when Labor was previously in office.^{Footnote 3} Prominent Labor politician, Tanya Plibersek blamed former Liberal-National Coalition government cuts to pay, family benefits, childcare, education and health for Australia’s even worse position, previously, of 50.^{Footnote 4} The Liberal Party is a centre-right party, Australia’s equivalent to the British Conservative Party, and governs in Coalition with the National Party, formerly the Country Party. Plibersek’s party, the centre-left Labor Party, is Australia’s social democratic party.^{Footnote 5} Labor’s 2022 Budget Statement went on to note that:

Our national level indicators highlight persistent gaps between women and men, including a gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent. Women in Australia continue to shoulder the majority of unpaid work and caring responsibilities and are more likely to be in part-time, casual or low-paid work as they try to balance work and family. Gender inequality is also a key factor underpinning gender-based violence. Until there is true gender equality, we cannot reach our full potential and be the Australia we want to be.^{Footnote 6}

Australian women are also more likely to live in poverty than Australian men, with figures worsening during the COVID-19 pandemic.^{Footnote 7} Women over 55 make up the largest component of those on the jobseeker unemployment benefit.^{Footnote 8}

More detailed and updated figures on the position of women in Australia will be given later in this book. For the moment it is worth noting that such findings on gender inequality are not unusual. A World Economic Forum report projects that, based on progress in the 102 countries assessed over the past 16 studies, “at the current rates of progress, it will take 155 years to close the Political Empowerment gender gap, 151 years for the Economic Participation and Opportunity gender gap, and 22 years for the Educational Attainment gender gap”.^{Footnote 9} Ominously, the same report stated that the “time to close the Health and Survival gender gap remains undefined as its progress to parity has stalled”.^{Footnote 10} Iceland was ranked number 1 in the Global Gender Gap index in 2022, New Zealand Australia’s close neighbour number 4, Sweden number 5, the UK number 22, Canada number 25 and the US number 27. Singapore scored worse than Australia at 49.^{Footnote 11} Further comparisons with such countries will be given later in this book. In terms of parliamentary rankings, in December 2022, Australia ranked 34 in terms of percentage of women in the lower house, compared with Rwanda at number 1, New Zealand at number 4, Iceland at number 7, Sweden at equal number 10, the UK at number 45, Canada at number 62, Singapore at number 67 and the US at number 70.^{Footnote 12}

While Australia’s position could be worse, it is still a sad state for a country that was once a world leader in terms of women’s political rights and feminist-influenced policy. South Australia, then a separate self-governing British colony, was the first place in the world to grant women the right both to vote and to stand for parliament, passing legislation in 1894 that was signed by Queen Victoria in 1895.^{Footnote 13} Furthermore, all women including Indigenous, non-property-owning and married were given the right to vote for the lower house, although property qualifications remained in the upper house.^{Footnote 14} Most Australian women, although not Indigenous women or those from non-European backgrounds in all states, obtained the right to vote and stand nationally in 1902, after the separate colonies federated to form a new Australian nation.^{Footnote 15} By contrast, it was not until 1918 that the UK gave women who were over 30 and met a property qualification the right to vote, with those property restrictions not lifted until 1928.^{Footnote 16} Australian feminists had been active in the fight for women’s suffrage in the UK and the Australian example was regularly cited by British suffragists.^{Footnote 17} Nor were many other parts of the world much better than the UK. Gender equality branding may be a key way in which Nordic states currently depict themselves.^{Footnote 18} However, Sweden, for example, did not introduce equal suffrage for women until 1919.^{Footnote 19} Canada granted some women the right to vote in 1918 but restrictions on Indigenous women voting were not lifted until 1960 and women did not get the right to vote in Quebec provincial elections until 1940.^{Footnote 20}

Australia was also innovative when so-called second-wave feminism arrived in Australia—“so-called” because feminism has a very long history and there had also been some feminist activity between these two so-called waves.^{Footnote 21} Not only did Australian thinkers such as Germaine Greer influence the new feminism internationally but Australia began to develop very innovative feminist policy machinery that will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter.^{Footnote 22} In doing so, feminists drew on a long Australian tradition of looking to the state to improve citizens’ social and economic conditions.^{Footnote 23} By 1990, Marian Sawer could write that “over the last fifteen years Australian women have created a range of women’s policy machinery and government-subsidised women’s services (delivered by women for government) which is unrivalled elsewhere”.^{Footnote 24} Sawer agreed that the “utilitarian attitude towards the state” had distinguished Australian feminism from feminism in the UK and US. The invention of the term “femocrat”, for feminist bureaucrats involved in the design and implementation of government services for women and broader feminist analysis of government policy, was typical of the Australian innovation of this period.^{Footnote 25}

It was one of those femocrats, Anne Summers, then head of the Office of the Status of Women, who was responsible for another innovation, namely the introduction of the Women’s Budget Program for the 1984 Budget. That Budget Program (the forerunner of what were later termed Budget Statements) required federal departments and agencies “to provide a detailed account of their impact of their activities on women for a document circulated by the prime minister on Budget night”.^{Footnote 26} The OECD has recognised Australia’s international contribution in this regard with a 2015 report acknowledging that: “Gender budgeting initiatives have been pursued in various forms over many years. Australia pioneered and piloted attempts at gender budgeting from 1984 onwards in response to calls from women’s rights activists. Over 90 countries have experimented with some form of gender budgeting over the past decade”.^{Footnote 27} It is a reflection on how much Australia’s often innovative role goes unacknowledged, even within Australia, that the Labor government’s 2022 Women’s Budget Statement triumphantly announced that: “The Government has committed to implement gender responsive budgeting, also known as gender budgeting, which is an established practice across a number of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries”.^{Footnote 28} Yet there was no mention that a form of gender responsive budgeting had been established in Australia in the 1980s, before being abolished by the socially conservative Abbott Liberal government in 2014^{Footnote 29} (although the conservative Morrison Liberal-National Coalition government eventually re-introduced a sanitised version for the 2020–2021 Budget after facing increasing feminist criticism for gender-blind economic policies and poor poll results from women voters).^{Footnote 30} Such oversights regarding Australia’s contribution make the writing of books such as this even more important.

As we shall see, Australia was also innovative in other ways. For example, Carmen Lawrence, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, boasted to the UN Fourth World Conference of Women in 1995 that Australia was “the first country in the world to develop national strategy on women and the new information technologies”.^{Footnote 31} UN reports suggest that gender disparities in regard to women and technology still need to be addressed.^{Footnote 32} The Australian government had been particularly alert to the opportunities offered by information technology, and the new markets it offered, because the government saw it as a way to overcome what is commonly referred to in Australia as “the tyranny of distance” resulting from Australia’s geographical location. It will be suggested in this book that Australia sometimes has particularly interesting insights to offer because of its location as a multicultural but predominantly western settler-colonial society located in, and largely economically dependent upon, the Asia-Pacific. Challenges that have resulted range from dealing with the effects of British/European colonialism on Indigenous women’s well-being to the effects of trade with China on women’s employment and the impact of heightened national security concerns in the region on discourses of masculinist protectionism. At the same time, being on the margins has arguably made Australian governments more open to varied perspectives and policy influences.

Unfortunately for feminists, Australia has not always been innovative in positive ways. Years before Tony Blair’s (1997–2007) “Third Way” or Gerhard Schroeder’s (1998–2005) “Neue Mitte”, the Australian Labor governments of 1983–1996 had attempted to meld neoliberal market economics with social democracy, albeit in an arguably more socially inclusive form than either Blair or Schroeder envisaged.^{Footnote 33} As will be argued in Chapter 3, while this period saw some major advances for women, including facilitating greater economic participation via affirmative action legislation, neoliberal-influenced government budget cuts to benefits and services and neoliberal-influenced industrial relations policies also had particular costs for women. Indeed, this book argues that neoliberal ideology has played a key role in constraining gender equality policy over many decades.

However, before proceeding to discuss the politics of gender equality policy in more depth, it is necessary to discuss what is meant by gender equality.

What Is Gender Equality?

As an OECD report points out, the pursuit of gender equality is “an uphill battle” despite significant progress having been made.^{Footnote 34} After all, not only is gender inequality long-standing historically and pervasive throughout society but even sympathetic governments and political parties often rank it as a low priority compared with other policy and electoral concerns.^{Footnote 35} Furthermore, as we shall see later in this book, gender equality policy has faced considerable opposition from socially conservative forces. Such opposition remains internationally, with a more recent development being populist mobilisations against so-called gender ideology.^{Footnote 36} While Australia has not yet seen the major influence of so-called anti-gender ideology prevalent in European countries, ranging from Hungary to Italy, and in the US, the issue is being increasingly raised by socially conservative Australian politicians.^{Footnote 37}

Gender can be understood in a variety of ways, including by feminists.^{Footnote 38} In Australian political discourse, the phrase “gender equality” is usually understood as shorthand for equality between men and women and that is the sense in which it is primarily used in this book. However, as we shall see, the issue of how “men” and “women” are defined can itself be contentious. Transgender and non-binary Australians can face significant discrimination and inequality because of their minority gender identities. The equality aspect of gender equality can also be conceived in various (albeit often interrelated) ways and can take material and institutional as well as cultural and social symbolic forms.^{Footnote 39} For example, it can be conceived as equality of outcomes or equality of opportunity or a mixture of both. Equality can be conceived as providing formal equality (constitutional, legislative, rules-based) or as encouraging capability. Equality can be conceived as giving women the same rights as men or as transforming or displacing citizen norms to go beyond traditional masculine biases, either by adding norms that are more relevant to women or by aiming to go beyond gender binaries altogether.^{Footnote 40} It can involve recognition of women’s identity and/or redistribution of resources. Equality can be conceived in individual terms or in terms of women as a socially disadvantaged group. (Disadvantaged group conceptions of equality are frequently tied to social democratic conceptions, although some social/welfare liberals also emphasise conceptions of social disadvantage.)^{Footnote 41} Equality can be understood in ways that are relatively blind to the specific issues that different groups of women face, or can be sensitive to issues of intersectionality in terms of how gender inequality interacts with, and is compounded by, issues such as class, race, ethnicity, sexuality and non-binary identity.^{Footnote 42}

There is also the related issue of how to measure and assess issues of gender equality.^{Footnote 43} It will be argued in this book that many concepts of equality that have been derived originally from class issues often throw only a partial light on gender inequality. Such concepts can be particularly useful for drawing attention to differences that can be quantitatively measured, for example income inequality—an original class issue. Quantitative measurement can also be extended to other aspects, ranging from gender disparities in full-time employment or hours devoted to domestic labour to percentages of women in parliament or political leadership. Class-derived conceptions can also throw light on issues of formal equality. Just as property qualifications in many countries once prevented working-class men from voting, so one can analyse when women won the vote. Conceptions of formal equality can also be extended to other issues, for example, whether regulations required women to resign from employment, such as full-time public service or teaching jobs, when they married.

However, such concepts of equality can be less useful for analysing a range of more qualitative issues. For example, nuanced issues such as how politicians perform their gender or encourage conventional forms of masculine and feminine self-esteem are harder to analyse using traditional quantitative concepts of equality. Quantitative forms of equality can also have unintended cultural gender biases implicit in them, for example is women’s equality being measured against a male norm?

Recently, it has become fashionable to contrast the concepts of equality and equity. For example, 2023 International Women’s Day in Australia had a “#EmbraceEquity campaign theme” that “seeks to get the world talking about why ‘equal opportunities are no longer enough’ - and can in fact be exclusionary, rather than inclusive”.^{Footnote 44} Those making the distinction between equality and equity argue that:

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities.

Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances, and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.^{Footnote 45}

The Australian Human Rights Commission has made some similar arguments.^{Footnote 46} However, it will be argued here that the concepts of equality and equity are not regularly used in such distinctive ways in Australian policy and political discourse. The concept of equality has not necessarily meant treating people the same and has often incorporated broader conceptions of equality of opportunity and/or outcomes.

For example, the Albanese government’s “National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality Discussion Paper” explicitly stated that preventing inequality involved recognising differing experiences and needs:

Gender inequality means people are not treated fairly because of their gender. Sometimes gender inequality happens because of gender and other things. For example, a person’s:

race

religion

sexuality

disability

age

education.^{Footnote 47}

Prime Minister Albanese's speeches state his support for both gender equality and equity and often use the terms interchangeably.^{Footnote 48} The analysis in this book will identify the forms of gender equality (including equity policies) being pursued by specific governments. It will address which forms of gender equality are likely to result in the best outcomes and raise issues regarding the limitations of particular gender equality agendas.

Gendered Policy Areas and Intersectionality

Having discussed various forms that gender equality can take, it is now time to discuss the range of policy areas that gender equality needs to address. For example, the European Union 2020–2025 gender equality strategy aims to address the following policy areas in its attempt to achieve “a gender-equal Europe”:

The goal is a Union where women and men, girls and boys, in all their diversity, are free to pursue their chosen path in life, have equal opportunities to thrive, and can equally participate in and lead our European society.

The key objectives are ending gender-based violence; challenging gender stereotypes; closing gender gaps in the labour market; achieving equal participation across different sectors of the economy; addressing the gender pay and pension gaps; closing the gender care gap and achieving gender balance in decision-making and in politics.^{Footnote 49}

In addition, the strategy refers to the need to use intersectionality “as a cross-cutting principle” in identifying policy area goals.^{Footnote 50}

All of these European policy areas are ones that would be familiar to Australian feminist policy-makers since at least the 1970s. Although the exact term would not have been used, even the reference to intersectionality would not have seemed totally alien given the 1970s Whitlam government’s attempts to address the specific issues faced by working-class, Indigenous women and women from non-English-speaking backgrounds, as well as its raising of women and international development issues at United Nations level.^{Footnote 51} More recently, the Albanese government pledged to consult with a long list of groups while developing its national gender equality strategy, including:

First Nations people
people with lived experience of gender inequality
people living with disability
people who are LGBTIQ+
culturally and linguistically diverse people
migrant and refugee women
people living in regional and remote areas
older people
younger people
people from all backgrounds.^{Footnote 52}

All of these intersectional issues will be addressed in this book. However, it will be argued that issues of sexuality and gender equality have been particularly closely entwined in the politics of gender equality. As Verloo points out, “opposition to gender equality has strong heteronormative components”.^{Footnote 53} Indeed, there is a complicated interrelationship here in which masculine and feminine gender stereotypes and performances are based around and reinforce heterosexual norms, while heterosexual norms also reinforce conventional conceptions of masculinity and femininity. An opposition to same-sex relationships or transgender identity can therefore be used to signal support for traditional gender roles in contexts where it might not be politically strategic to express such support explicitly. In other words, it is not just the case that same-sex and transgender issues are themselves gender equality issues in terms of discrimination against minorities who are seen to be not performing their gender correctly. It is also the case that politicians’ rejection and critique of such identities can be used as a sign of support for those more traditional gender identities that are being transgressed by LGBTIQ+ citizens.^{Footnote 54} Issues of sexuality therefore intersect with issues of gender equality in numerous ways although they should not be reduced to it, rather the relationship is reciprocal. Issues of transgender identity and gender equality can be particularly contentious with many feminists being very supportive of transgender rights as a gender equality issue but with some others arguing that transgender rights can impinge on women’s rights.^{Footnote 55} As already mentioned, while these latter issues have not played quite such a prominent role in Australia as in some other countries, they have had a role to play in Australian political campaigns and will be discussed in later chapters in this book.

As the earlier references to gender responsive budgeting make clear, all aspects of government policy, not just those labelled as gender equality initiatives, have the potential to impact differently on men and women given their different positions in Australian society and the economy. For example, as we shall see in Chapters 5 and 6, government economic stimulus measures have sometimes supported industries with high levels of male employment while neglecting industries with high levels of female employment. Since women are often considered most responsible for family caring responsibilities, general policies cutting back the public sector can result in women having to undertake extra duties in order to make up for public services that have been reduced.

The analysis in this book will therefore touch on a broad range of policy areas, including the implications for diverse groups of women. However, there is one major proviso. This book focuses on analysing government policy-making at the level of politicians. It does not analyse how effectively those policies are then conceived and implemented by relevant public servants.^{Footnote 56} Nor does it provide in-depth analyses of the feminist governance structures that have been introduced within the public service as part of those policy processes.^{Footnote 57} Unfortunately, such issues are beyond the scope of this current study given its focus on the politics of gender inequality in regard to the discourse, image, actions and policies of government politicians (rather than issues of public administration) and that this book is already addressing a wide range of gender equality issues across a long historical period. However, this book will cite relevant secondary literature and will analyse when politicians make key changes to bureaucratic advice structures, for example, transferring the Office for Women to different departments or cutting or abolishing women’s advisory functions within the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, this means that it was not possible to document the, sometimes courageous, attempts by key public servants to defend and extend gender equality policy, although the efforts of some are briefly alluded to. Similarly, problems of word length and scope have resulted in a focus on the federal level of Australian politics and have prevented the analysis of the development of gender equality policies at a state level.

In other words, this book does not claim to analyse the complete picture of the politics of gender equality policy and issues in Australia but it does aim to analyse key aspects of them in regard to the role of federal politicians in elected governments.

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches

In order to analyse the politics of gender equality, this book will draw on a long tradition of feminist political science research that highlights the gendered nature of the state and of related citizenship identities, rights and entitlements.^{Footnote 58} It will also draw on more specific feminist insights, especially the use of feminist discursive framing analysis to analyse policy.

Feminist research in political studies and political theory has long drawn attention to the gendered nature of citizenship, pointing out that traditional western political thought and practice constructed the citizen as a (propertied) male head of household, although this later extended to include male wage-earner heads of household.^{Footnote 59} Furthermore, the western citizen was also constructed not just as male but also as white and, at least predominantly, as heterosexual.^{Footnote 60} Feminists soon pointed out that such traditional constructions had not only influenced traditional liberal thought but also a broad range of practical policy outcomes, including the very nature of the welfare state.^{Footnote 61} Women tended to be constructed in much social policy as the dependants, wives and daughters of male income earners and consequently received benefits largely at second hand, albeit with some exceptions for women who were single or widowed. Yet, modern liberalism tended to depict itself as gender-neutral, while also still reproducing gendered dualisms (for example identifying self-interest with a strong masculinity and selflessness with a weak femininity).^{Footnote 62} The citizen was constructed as an “autonomous” abstract individual—a “fantastic” figure given that the (male) individual was actually dependent upon the domestic support of women.^{Footnote 63} In other words, the concept of the citizen was still being constructed not just around males but around a male norm.^{Footnote 64} The existence of “male biases and norms” has been represented by feminists as “the main problem with policy-making” that is uninformed by feminist strategies and analyses.^{Footnote 65} Given this history of how citizenship was constructed, it is also no wonder that women remain underrepresented in politics globally.^{Footnote 66}

Nonetheless, as Louise Chappell has indicated, Australian feminist work has had a nuanced view of the nature of the state due to the long history of feminist engagement mentioned previously. For example, Australian feminists have tended to see the state as neither irredeemably patriarchal, unlike in some radical feminist views, nor gender-neutral, as in some liberal feminist views.^{Footnote 67} This book concurs with that approach, seeing the state as a site of gendered contest where it is possible to win important policy reforms, despite the hurdles in place. Those hurdles include the influence of gendered political institutions both formal and informal and gendered codes and rules, indeed, Chappell herself has made important contributions to the comparative study of gendered political institutions.^{Footnote 68} Specific characteristics of Australian political institutions that may influence some outcomes, such as its form of federalism or the lack of a bill or charter of human rights, will also be taken into account, although previous work by the author has emphasised the significant role that political will can still play.^{Footnote 69} So will the need for gender equality policies to address the impact of settler-colonialism on Indigenous women.^{Footnote 70} The gendered nature of the state has also been influenced by various political actors outside of parliament and the bureaucracy. For example, I have argued elsewhere that the trade union movement and social democratic parties historically reinforced the male breadwinner model that was formally implemented in Australian industrial relations policy and institutions.^{Footnote 71}

While building on existing feminist work, the analysis in this book has used the insights gained to assess the relevance and utility of particular feminist theories. It draws on “congruence analysis” approaches which assess whether case studies are congruent with particular theoretical approaches.^{Footnote 72} For example, some relevant feminist theory has been critical, or ambivalent, in its attitudes towards policies based on equality claims fearing that they reflect fixed rather than fluid gender categories; result in outcomes that are normalising (incorporating women into existing male-defined norms); or involve an undifferentiated category of “women” that can negate the specific needs of women from different social groups, for example class racial or ethnic ones.^{Footnote 73} Yet, I have previously argued (in the context of same-sex marriage) that while such theorising can provide useful insights, it can also overlook the challenges that equality claims can pose to normalising discourses and the positive difference that equality-based policies can make to peoples’ lives.^{Footnote 74} In the Australian case, feminist theorising suggesting the category ‘woman’ has been undifferentiated overlooks attempts to acknowledge the varying needs of women from different social groups from the Whitlam period on that have already been alluded to. Similarly, the analysis in this book counters arguments that contemporary feminist measures have neglected low-income women and issues of redistribution in support of a politics of recognition.^{Footnote 75} While that has sometimes been the case with Liberal-National Coalition governments, it has generally not been the case with Labor governments in Australia.

In order to analyse the gendered nature of policy further, the study will also make extensive use of a key tool, namely the analysis of gendered discursive policy framing.

Discursive Policy Framing

The policy “discourse” analysed in this book covers both bodies of thought (in, for example, texts, documents, statements, arguments, debates, analyses, associated images) and practices underpinned by particular forms of knowledge and expertise, for example economic orthodoxies.^{Footnote 76} It is now widely acknowledged that “ideas participate in the construction of the issues and problems that enter the policy agenda”, including by legitimising or challenging existing policy agendas.^{Footnote 77} Discursive framing plays a crucial role in this. Ryan and Gamson describe a frame as “a thought organizer, highlighting certain events and facts as important and rendering others invisible”.^{Footnote 78} Consequently, as Fischer explains “a particular framing of an issue can bestow the appearance of problematic on some features of a discussion while others seem proper and fixed”.^{Footnote 79} In other words, policy frames influence how issues are conceived, which issues are seen as important or even noticed at all and which policy responses are considered to be the most appropriate responses to perceived policy problems. There can also be a form of discursive and institutional path dependency at work whereby thinking outside of existing discourse and policy programmes becomes too difficult.^{Footnote 80} This book argues that the historical development of policy framing can be particularly important, influencing both subsequent policy design and outcomes.

Given its subject matter, the approach here draws heavily on feminist analyses of gendered discursive policy framing. It recognises that gender equality is a contested, discursively constructed concept influenced by a broader politics.^{Footnote 81} As Lombardo, Meier and Verloo pointed out, it “does matter greatly what meaning is attached to the concept of gender equality”, especially given that: “Gender equality can … lose part of its dynamic when it is fixed to a particular understanding”.^{Footnote 82} The concept of gender equality can be incorporated into other policy frames that shape it in non-beneficial ways. For example, the concept of gender equality can be “shrunk” to involve just formal legal equality or “bent” to focus on other desired outcomes such as economic growth.^{Footnote 83} Noting that policy frames influence policy design (and potentially outcomes) in regard to gender, Carol Bacchi argues for feminists “to open up the problem representations contained in policy proposals to critical analysis, teasing out the presuppositions which lodge there”.^{Footnote 84} Rosalind Cavaghan makes a similar call for the need to analyse meanings and perceptions.^{Footnote 85}

Even relatively mainstream commentators now recognise the important role of gendered policy frameworks. For example, a Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) report notes the important role played by policy framing when it comes to issues of “minimising the motherhood penalty”:

Policy frameworks can entrench existing workplace, social and cultural norms. Reducing barriers to women working and enabling more even sharing of unpaid work will increase equality of opportunity, allowing women to continue in demanding jobs if they choose. Australia’s current policies around parental-leave entitlements, childcare and effective marginal tax rates contribute to the high rate of part-time work among women, exacerbating the motherhood penalty. Surveys support this finding, showing Australian women’s satisfaction with their employment opportunities declines following having children and continues showing a sharp decline four years into parenthood.^{Footnote 86}

Some further examples will help to explain the relevance of framing analysis and how it will be applied to the analysis in this book. One of the key questions to be asked here is: How are both gender inequality and gender equality being understood in specific framings and how do those relate to different concepts of equality that have already been noted? For example, have policies framed through a pre-existing male norm resulted in women’s gendered caring responsibilities not being adequately factored into both broader economic policies and those specifically designed to address gender inequality? If policies that were originally framed around conceptions of the male wage-earner head of household are simply extended to women, has that resulted in relations of financial interdependency/support being assumed in government policy, rather than individuals being assessed separately, with implications for means tested benefits? Is equality being framed in a way that involves a more radical transformation of society that goes well beyond existing gender role expectations, so that government benefits and workplace industrial relations regulations are redesigned, for example, to encourage equal caring roles by both men and women? How is gender equality being framed in terms of those with non-binary or LGBTIQ+ identities?

Overall, particular attention will be paid to whether measures were adequately taking into account the general social and economic situation of women, for example in regard to women’s caring role, a gender differentiated labour market, the influence of constructions of masculinity and femininity—or whether the measures were influenced by existing party frameworks on economic and social issues that did not adequately allow for addressing the problems and forms of inequality faced by women. For example, Annesley has analysed how varied and shifting framings of the “male breadwinner model” and the “adult worker model” in Britain influenced New Labour welfare state policies, as women were increasingly expected to be economically self-reliant.^{Footnote 87} However, she has also noted that there can be problems when such framing does not allow adequately for women’s caring responsibilities or disadvantaged position in the labour market. Claire Annesley’s insights are potentially relevant to a number of policy positions in Australia including Gillard-era policies that cut single parents’ benefits to around 80,000 recipients (mainly women) after their youngest child turned eight on the grounds that this would encourage women to take up employment but did not sufficiently take into account the effect of the loss of earnings or whether sufficient, adequately paid jobs with flexible family-friendly arrangements were available. As we shall see in Chapter 7, this policy deficiency has only been partially addressed by the Albanese government.

Ideological Influences on Discursive Policy Framing

The focus on individual economic self-reliance reflects the ongoing influence of neoliberal ideological frameworks on policy discourse. The term “ideology” is used in this book to refer to a broad, umbrella-like framework of belief and meaning—a political “world view”—consisting of concepts, ideas and images. The term ideology is not used here to connote a negative meaning of “false consciousness” but can include concepts that one agrees with as well as disagrees with. Within the confines of the broad framework, considerable contradiction and variety are possible. For example, versions of liberal ideology may share common features in terms of emphasising the rights of the individual and the right to own private property but can take a range of forms when it comes to views regarding the preferred size and role of the state and its exact relationship with the private sector.^{Footnote 88} Ideology and policy discourse intersect. We will see in the next chapter that social democratic and social liberal ideological perspectives, which believe the provision of government services have a crucial role to play in improving citizens’ quality of life, played a key role in policy discourse supporting feminist-influenced services from rape crisis and women’s health services to better childcare. However, from the late twentieth-century, policy discourse around gender equality tended to be impacted by neoliberal ideological perspectives which privileged market-oriented objectives. These neoliberal perspectives influenced western countries, for example Sweden, Britain and the US, as well as international development programmes.^{Footnote 89} However, it will be argued here that what Sophie Jacquot has described in the European Union context as “the articulation between the market norm and the equality norm” followed a somewhat different trajectory in Australia.^{Footnote 90}

Neoliberalism has long been criticised by feminist economists for resulting in unequal gender outcomes.^{Footnote 91} In the case of Australia, neoliberal policy frameworks saw governments privileging free markets and economic deregulation over economic intervention while promoting individual capability, self-reliance and choice over government support or conceptions of structural gender inequality.^{Footnote 92} As Marian Sawer et al. have pointed out, neoliberalism not only moved away from the social liberal idea that the state had a major role to play in increasing social justice, thereby lowering expectations of government, but questioned the very idea of social justice itself.^{Footnote 93} Although the extent differed, neoliberal frameworks influenced both centre-left Labor and centre-right Coalition (Liberal/Country Party/National) government gender equality policy settings.^{Footnote 94} However, Liberal-National Coalition governments were more likely to downplay structural disadvantage and to believe that markets characterised by minimal government intervention were gender-neutral and would further gender equality. Meanwhile, the conventional economic framings involved in the “economisation” of gender equality contributed to the neglect of issues such as social reproduction, the everyday caring and domestic labour traditionally done predominantly by women, that reproduces the workforce and the population more broadly.^{Footnote 95}

Influences of Politicians’ Gender Performance on Discursive Policy Framing

I have argued elsewhere that political leaders’ performance of gender identity is a key way in which leaders attempt to attract electoral support.^{Footnote 96} Australian leaders are no exception.^{Footnote 97} This book will argue that political leaders’ performance of gendered identities can also influence the framing of gender equality policy and vice versa. Support for, or opposition to, particular gender equality measures can be an integral part of a politicians’ image designed to gain them electoral support. For example, performances of traditional masculine identity can contribute to more traditional framings of gendered policies while performances of more progressive forms of masculinity can contribute to a greater focus on enhancing gender equality. In short, policies in regard to gender are very much part of how a politician attempts to frame their image. Furthermore, gendered leadership images can sometimes undermine the broader politics of gender equality by contributing to gender stereotypes. They can also undermine attempts to change parliamentary institutional culture to be more gender sensitive.^{Footnote 98}

Performances of “protective masculinity” have often played a particularly significant role in regard to gender policy. For example, on the socially conservative side of politics, Prime Minister John Howard (1996–2007) depicted himself as a grandfatherly figure protecting those adhering to more traditional gender roles. On the more progressive side of politics, Anthony Albanese (2022–?) depicted himself as a caring new age man protecting vulnerable women, including those working in the care economy. The gendered use of emotion can play a particularly significant role as politicians aim to make some sections of the population feel protected while encouraging anger or resentment towards others.^{Footnote 99} For example, Howard attempted to encourage “mainstream” Australians to feel resentment towards groups, including feminist organisations, which were claimed to be exploiting state largesse and dismissing stay-at-home Mums.

Meanwhile, societal expectations of women’s role also impact on how feminist policy framings are interpreted and (mis)framed by opponents as well as supporters. For example, Sawer notes that:

A good example of unsuccessful policy framing was the women’s movement demand in the 1970s for “free community-controlled 24-hour childcare”. Intended to exhibit sensitivity to the needs of low-paid shift workers who needed childcare outside normal business hours, this slogan instead contributed to perceptions that those involved in women’s liberation were unnatural and wanted to get rid of their children.^{Footnote 100}

In short, various forms of the politics of identity influence policy framing and will be taken into account in the analysis in this book.

Sources Used

The bulk of the original research undertaken for this book has been primary source research related to the specific Labor and Coalition electoral strategies, government policy initiatives and legislation to be studied. Particular attention has been paid to the Liberal Party as the senior party in the Coalition and the party that has supplied Coalition government ministers for Women. Sources used included politicians’ and parties’ websites, Hansard, Parliamentary Papers (including budget papers), legislation and extra parliamentary statements which provide essential information regarding how specific policies and legislation on gender equality were framed and justified. Academic analyses, relevant Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, views of NGO and women’s organisations, government reports and critiques by political opponents have also assisted in identifying potential oversights and weaknesses in how key policies were framed.

Structure of Book Chapters

This book has a chronological structure, dealing with Australian governments in sequence, while also making some international comparisons. Chapter 2 analyses the Whitlam and Fraser governments of 1972–1983, focusing on “second-wave” feminisms’ influence on the policy framework of a reforming Labor government but noting that a neoliberal framework was beginning to emerge during the period of its Coalition successor. Chapter 3 analyses the Hawke and Keating Labor governments of 1983–1996, focusing on the implications for women of the governments’ innovative attempts to meld social democratic and neoliberal frameworks. Chapter 4 analyses the Howard governments of 1996–2007, focusing on the role of a more socially conservative and right-wing neoliberal policy framework in undoing many advances for women, including those supported by more moderate Liberals. Chapter 5 analyses the Rudd and Gillard governments of 2007–2013, focusing on the governments’ attempts to undo key Howard government policies and improve gender equality as part of a more “fair go” framework that embraced elements of Keynesian economics in response to the Global Financial Crisis but also still revealed some neoliberal influences and failed to adequately anticipate gendered opposition culture war strategies. Chapter 6 analyses the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition governments of 2013–2022 and their policy framework that was more sympathetic to a neoliberal version of market-friendly gender equality than Howard’s government but still exhibited key forms of gender blindness that became increasingly evident during COVID-19 and could not deal adequately with parliamentary sexual harassment and rape scandals. Chapter 7 deals with the Albanese Labor government of 2022—as it sought to develop a less neoliberal policy framework that could also address key gender equality issues, including many left over from the Rudd and Gillard years.

Chapter 8, the Conclusion, briefly revisits the position of women in Australia today and makes international comparisons, including in the context of a global backlash against gender equality. It asks whether Australia, as a multicultural but predominantly western, settler-colonial society situated in the Asia-Pacific has some unique insights to offer. The chapter emphasises the importance of understanding the continuing influence of historical policy settings (e.g. path dependency) given that Australian governments, like others, have largely engaged with feminism via their pre-existing political and policy frameworks. Consequently, some long-standing gendered policy biases can remain and male politicians, in particular, are all too often performing traditional gender roles that help to undermine broader social and cultural change. The chapter concludes by imagining what a more feminist-centred political, economic, social and cultural agenda would look like as well as the future challenges, ranging from technological to geopolitical and geoeconomic change, that such an agenda would need to address.

Notes

1.
Australian Government, Treasury, Women’s Budget Statement: October 2022–23. Commonwealth of Australia, 25 October 2022, p. 18. https://archive.budget.gov.au/2022-23-october/womens-statement/download/womens_budget_statement_2022-23.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2023.
2.
A. Albanese, J. Chalmers, & K. Gallagher, Foreword. In Australian Government, Treasury, Women’s Budget Statement: October 2022–23. Commonwealth of Australia, 25 October 2022, p. 1. https://archive.budget.gov.au/2022-23-october/womens-statement/download/womens_budget_statement_2022-23.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2023.
3.
World Economic Forum (WEF), Insight Report: The Global Gender Gap Report 2013, WEF, 2013, p. 8. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2023.
4.
T. Plibersek, If you’re wondering how badly Scott Morrison is letting women down, just take a look at Australia’s ranking in the World Economic Forum’s gender ranking […]. Twitter, 31 March 2021; see also B. Williams, Australia’s woman problem? The rise and fall of gender equality. In M. Bonotti & N. Miragliotta (Eds.), Australian politics at a crossroads: Prospects for change (2024, pp. 241–255). Routledge. https://twitter.com/tanya_plibersek/status/1377126674165231622. Accessed 12 April 2024.
5.
The Country Party changed its name to the National Party in 1975. See further National Museum of Australia (NMA), Defining Moments: Country Party. NMA, Updated 6 March 2023. https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/country-party#:~:text=In%201975%2C%20the%20Country%20Party,gain%20popularity%20in%20urban%20areas. Accessed 1 May 2023.
6.
Albanese, Chalmers, & Gallagher, Foreword. The gender pay gap had slightly reduced by 2023 with Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, stating that “In 2023, Australia’s national gender pay gap was 13.3 per cent. The average weekly full-time earnings of a woman in Australia are $253.50 lower per week than the equivalent for men. … On current projections it will take another 26 years to close the gender pay gap”. K. Gallagher, Progress to close the gender pay gap. Media Release, 30 March 2023. https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/gallagher/2023/progress-close-gender-pay-gap. Accessed 27 April 2023; Australian Government, Treasury, Women’s Budget Statement: October 2022–23.
7.
Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) & National Council of Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC), ACOSS & NCSMC: We know how to deliver gender equity and end poverty for women, but will we? ACOSS, 8 March 2022. https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/acoss-ncsmc-we-know-how-to-deliver-gender-equality-and-end-poverty-for-women-but-will-we/. Accessed 27 April 2023; U. Sila & V. Dugain, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No 1539: Income poverty of households in Australia: Evidence from the HILDA Survey. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 14 February 2019, p. 14. https://one.oecd.org/document/ECO/WKP(2019)8/En/pdf. Accessed 12 April 2024; P. Davidson, B. Bradbury, & M. Wong, Poverty and Inequality Partnership Report No 20: Poverty in Australia 2023: Who is affected. ACOSS & UNSW Sydney, March 2023, pp. 32–35.
https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Poverty-in-Australia-2023_Who-is-affected.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2024.
8.
Australian Parliament, Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), JobSeeker Payment: COVID-19, age & gender. PBO, 12 January 2023, p. 3. https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20230428071132/https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Budget_Office/Publications/Budget_Bites?CalendarWidgetTarget=26-02-2023&tab=tab2a. Accessed 3 May 2023.
9.
WEF, Insight Report: Global Gender Gap Report 2022. WEF, July 2022, p. 5. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2023.
10.
WEF, Global Gender Gap Report 2022, p. 5.
11.
WEF, Global Gender Gap Report 2022, p. 10.
12.
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), Monthly ranking of women in national parliaments. IPU, December 2022. https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking/?month=12&year=2022. Accessed 12 April 2024; though of course women politicians may have different views on what constitutes gender equality or oppose it all together, see, e.g., K. Celis & S. Childs, Feminist democratic representation. Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 13, 20, 27, 188–189.
13.
New Zealand had given women the right to vote but not stand in 1893. New Zealand History, Women and the Vote: Page 5—World suffrage timeline. Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Updated 27 April 2023. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/womens-suffrage/world-suffrage-timeline. Accessed 28 April 2023.
14.
NMA, Defining Moments: Women’s Suffrage: 1894: Women’s suffrage, South Australia. NMA, Updated 29 September 2022. https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/womens-suffrage#:~:text=The%20Bill%20was%20officially%20made,and%20women%20of%20the%20colony. Accessed 28 April 23.
15.
But not without a struggle, see P. Grimshaw, A white women’s suffrage. In H. D. Irving (Ed.), A woman’s constitution?: Gender & history in the Australian commonwealth (2001, pp. 77–97). Hale & Iremonger.
16.
UK Parliament, Women get the vote. UK Parliament, 2023. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/. Accessed 28 April 2023; A. Hough, The 120th anniversary of women’s suffrage in Australia. Flagpost—Parliamentary Library Blog, 15 June 2022. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2022/June/Womens_suffrage. Accessed 28 April 2023.
17.
See C. Wright, You daughters of freedom: The Australians who won the vote and inspired the world. Text Publishing, 2018.
18.
E. Larsen, S. M. Moss, & I. Skjelsbæk (Eds.), Gender equality and nation branding in the Nordic region. Routledge, 2021.
19.
Sveriges Riksdag, The history of the Riksdag. Sveriges Riksdag, 5 January 2023. https://www.riksdagen.se/en/how-the-riksdag-works/democracy/the-history-of-the-riksdag/#c142d5528926be60edcfc232f18df90f. Accessed 28 April 2023.
20.
Elections Canada, Women’s right to vote case study. Elections Canada, 2023. https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/voting-rights-through-time-0/case-study-2-womens-right-vote. Accessed 28 April 23.
21.
See Lake’s list of achievements in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. M. Lake, Getting equal: The history of Australian feminism. Allen & Unwin, 1999, p. 10.
22.
In particular, Greer’s conception of empowering women revealed the influence of her Australian libertarian background (see further Lake, Getting equal, pp. 227–228).
23.
Lake, Getting equal, p. 253.
24.
M. Sawer, Sisters in suits: Women and public policy in Australia. Allen & Unwin, 1990, p. xv.
25.
Sawer, Sisters in suits, p. xv; on femocrats see further pp. 22–25.
26.
Sawer, Sisters in suits, p. 228; on Summers see further pp. 71–73.
27.
R. Downes, L. von Trapp, & S. Nicol, Gender budgeting in OECD countries. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 16(3), 2017, p. 6. https://www.oecd.org/gender/Gender-Budgeting-in-OECD-countries.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2024; for a history of its establishment and influence, see further M. Costa & R. Sharp, Gender-responsive budgeting. In M. Sawer, L. A. Banaszak, J. True, & J. Kantola (Eds.), Handbook of feminist governance (2023, pp. 138–149). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800374812.00018, although Costa and Sharp also draw attention to limitations in the way it has been implemented, both by specific governments and in terms of the neglect of key macroeconomic policy issues (pp. 146–147).
28.
Commonwealth of Australia, Treasury, Women’s Budget Statement: October 2022–23, p. 13.
29.
See R. Sharp, M. Costa, & S. Austen, Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back. The Conversation, 30 September 2020. https://theconversation.com/each-budget-used-to-have-a-gender-impact-statement-we-need-it-back-144849. Accessed 28 April 2023. Australia’s role in introducing gender responsive budgeting was belatedly acknowledged in J. Chalmers & K. Gallagher, Women’s Budget Statement: 2023–24. Commonwealth of Australia, 9 May 2023, p. 5. https://budget.gov.au/content/womens-statement/download/womens_budget_statement_2023-24.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2024.
30.
M. Payne, A. Ruston, & J. Hume, Women’s Budget Statement: 2021–22. Commonwealth of Australia, 11 May 2021. https://archive.budget.gov.au/2021-22/womens-statement/download/womens_budget_statement_2021-22.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2023; National Foundation of Australian Women (NFAW), Budget 2021–22: Net Impact on Women. NFAW, May 2021 https://nfaw.org/storage/2021/05/Overview-2021.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2023.
31.
C. Lawrence, Presentation of Australia’s national commitments to women, Speech. Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 6 September 1995. https://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/conf/gov/950906225912.txt. Accessed 28 April 2023.
32.
J. Wajcman, E. Young, & A. Fitzmaurice, Discussion Paper No. 36: The Digital Revolution: Implications for gender equality and women’s rights 25 years after Beijing. UN Women, August 2020, p. 11. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/The-digital-revolution-Implications-for-gender-equality-and-womens-rights-25-years-after-Beijing-en.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2023.
33.
C. Johnson & F. Tonkiss, The third influence: The Blair government and Australian labor. Policy and Politics, 30(1), 2002, pp. 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573022501539.
34.
OECD, The pursuit of gender equality: An Uphill battle. OECD Publishing, 2017, pp. 17–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.
35.
M. Verloo, How to study varieties of opposition to gender+ equality in Europe?: Lessons from this book, conceptual building blocks, and puzzles to address. In M. Verloo (Ed.), Varieties of opposition to gender equality in Europe (2018, p. 222). Routledge.
36.
See, e.g., M. Verloo, Introduction: Dynamics of opposition to gender+ equality in Europe. In M. Verloo (Ed.), Varieties of opposition to gender equality in Europe (2018, pp. 3–18). Routledge; D. Paternotte & R. Kuhar, The anti-gender movement in comparative perspective. In R. Kuhar & D.Paternotte (Eds.), Anti-gender campaigns in Europe: Mobilising against equality (2017, pp. 253–276). Rowman & Littlefield; J. Kantola & E. Lombardo, Strategies of right populists in opposing gender equality in a polarised European Parliament. International Political Science Review, 42(5), 2021, p. 566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120963953.
37.
Although some opponents of so-called gender ideology, ranging from Georgia Meloni to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, claim that they support both gender equality and the traditional family. See G. Meloni, L’intervista di GiorgiaMeloni al Washington Post, Interview, 14 September 2022. https://www.giorgiameloni.it/2022/09/14/lintervista-di-giorgia-meloni-al-washington-post/. Accessed 28 April 2023; G. Meloni, L’8, il 9 e il 10 maggioFdI in piazza per difendere la famigliatradizionale e contrastarel ‘ideologia di gender’, News, 7 May 2015. https://www.giorgiameloni.it/2015/05/07/l8-il-9-e-il-10-maggio-fdi-in-piazza-per-difendere-la-famiglia-tradizionale-e-contrastare-lideologia-di-gender/. Accessed 28 April 2023; see alsoChapters 6–8.
38.
J. Kantola & E. Lombardo, Gender and political analysis. Palgrave, 2017; R. Alsop, A. Fitzsimmons, & K. Lennon, Theorizing gender. Polity, 2002; J. W. Messerschmidt, P. Y. Martin, M. A. Messner, & R. Connell (Eds.), Gender Reckonings: New social theory and research. New York University Press, 2018.
39.
For a useful and detailed survey of key debates see J. Squires, Equality and universalism. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. L. Weldon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and politics (2013, pp. 731–755). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0029.
40.
See further, M. Verloo & E. Lombardo, Contested gender equality and policy variety in Europe: Introducing a critical frame analysis approach. In M. Verloo (Ed.), Multiple meanings of gender equality: A critical frame analysis of gender (2007, pp. 22–24). CEU Press; G. Whitehouse, & M. Smith, Equal pay for work of equal value, wage-setting and the gender pay gap. Journal of Industrial Relations, 62(4), 2020, p. 522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185620943626.
41.
See, e.g., S. Walby, Globalization and inequalities: Complexity and contested modernities. SAGE, 2009, p. 6; M. Sawer, The ethical state? Social liberalism in Australia. Melbourne University Press, 2003, pp. 103–121.
42.
Squires, Equality and Universalism, pp. 746–748; P. Hill Collins & V. Chepp, Intersectionality. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. Laurel Weldon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and politics (2013, pp. 57–87). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0002.
43.
For a more quantitative economic approach see, e.g., P. Profesta, Gender equality and public policy: Measuring progress in Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525886.
44.
International Women’s Day (IWD), Equality versus Equity: What’s the difference as we #EmbraceEquity for IWD 2023 and beyond? IWD, 24 January 2023. https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Missions/18707/Equality-versus-Equity-What-s-the-difference-as-we-EmbraceEquity-for-IWD-2023-and-beyond#:~:text=Defining%20equality%20and%20equity&text=Equality%20means%20each%20individual%20or,to%20reach%20an%20equal%20outcome. Accessed 15 March 2022.
45.
IWD, Equality versus Equity.
46.
Australian Government, Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Let’s talk about equality and equity. AHRC. https://humanrights.gov.au/lets-talk-about-equality-and-equity. Accessed 28 April 2023.
47.
Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), National strategy to achieve gender equality: Discussion paper summary. Commonwealth of Australia, March 2023, p. 5. https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/nat-strategy-gender-equality-discussion-paper-easyread.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2024.
48.
A. Albanese, CEDA: State of the Nation Conference, Parliament House, Canberra, Speech, 8 September 2022. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/ceda-state-nation-conference-parliament-house-canberra. Accessed 12 April 2024; A. Albanese, UN Women Australia International Women’s Day Parliamentary Breakfast, Parliament House, Canberra, Speech, 8 February 2023. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/un-women-australia-international-womens-day-parliamentary-breakfast. Accessed 12 April 2024.
49.
European Commission, Gender Equality Strategy: Achievements and key areas for action. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en. Accessed 28 April 2023.
50.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025. European Commission, 5 March 2020, p. 2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0152&from=EN. Accessed 12 April 2024.
51.
These are discussed in more depth in Chapter 2 but see, e.g., G. Whitlam, Speech to the opening of the Women and Politics Conference, Canberra, 31 August 1975. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00003874.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018; E. G. Whitlam, World Conference of International Women’s Year: Statement by the Leader of the Australian Delegation Ms Elizabeth Reid at Mexico City on Friday 20 June 1975, Media Release, 24 June 1974, pp. 4–5. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00003796_0.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2024.
52.
Australian Government, Office for Women (OFW), Working for Women: A strategy for gender equality. Commonwealth of Australia, 2024, pp. 8, 26, 87. https://genderequality.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/working-for-women-a-strategy-for-gender-equality.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2023.
53.
Verloo, How to study varieties of opposition to gender+ equality in Europe?, p. 224.
54.
C. Johnson, Fixing the meaning of marriage: Political symbolism and citizen identity in the same-sex marriage debate, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 27(2), 2013, pp. 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2013.766308.
55.
C. A. MacKinnon, F. Mackay, M. Shuman, S. Fredman, & R. Chang, Exploring transgender law and politics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. https://signsjournal.org/exploring-transgender-law-and-politics/. Accessed 5 June 2023; S. Hines, The feminist frontier: On trans and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 2019, pp. 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1411791; B. Winter, Transgender Body Politics launch speech by Bronwyn Winter, 30 October 2020. https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/blog/transgender-body-politics-launch-speech-by-bronwyn-winter. Accessed 12 April 2024; Equality Australia, New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality, 18 January 2021. https://equalityaustralia.org.au/overwhelming-support-on-trans-equality/. Accessed 12 April 2024.
56.
See, e.g., P. Ahrens, Indirect Opposition: Diffuse barriers to gender+ equality in the European Union. In M. Verloo (Ed.), Varieties of opposition to gender equality in Europe (2018, pp. 77–97). Routledge; R. Cavaghan, Making gender equality happen: Knowledge, change and resistance in EU gender mainstreaming. Routledge, 2017.
57.
See M. Sawer, L. A. Banaszak, J. True, & J. Kantola, Introduction to the handbook of feminist governance. In M. Sawer, L. A. Banaszak, J. True, & J. Kantola (Eds.), Handbook of feminist governance (2023, pp. 1–13). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800374812.00005.
58.
See, e.g., L. Chappell, The state and governance. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. L. Weldon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and politics (2013, pp. 603–626). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0024; M. Sawer, Feminist political science. In D. Berg-Schlosser, B. Badie, & L. Morlino (Eds.), The Sage handbook of political science (vol. 1, 2020, pp. 96–113). Sage; J. Kantola & E. Lombardo, Gender and political analysis. Palgrave, 2017.
59.
Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western political thought. Princeton University Press, 1979, p. 202. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt24hq74; D. Coole, Women in political theory: From ancient misogyny to contemporary Feminism. Wheatsheaf Books, 1988; C. Pateman, The sexual contract. Basil Blackwell, 1988; M. Stacey & M. Price, Women, politics and power. Tavistock, 1981.
60.
It is acknowledged that western categories need to be used with caution in other contexts, see C. Johnson & V. Mackie, Sexual citizenship in a comparative perspective. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), Companion to sexuality studies (2020, 337–356). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119315049.ch18; C. Johnson, Sexual citizenship in a comparative perspective: Dilemmas and insights. Sexualities, 20(1–2), 2017, pp. 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716645787.
61.
E. Wilson, Women and the welfare state. Tavistock, 1977; C. Pateman, Democratization and citizenship in the 1990s: The Legacy of T.H. Marshall, Vilhelm Aubert Memorial Lecture 1996. Institute for Social Research and Department of Sociology, University of Oslo, 1996.
62.
W. Brown, States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 142, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzgb898.
63.
Brown, States of injury, p. 158.
64.
A. Phillips, Engendering democracy. Polity Press, 1991, p. 149.
65.
E. Lombardo, P. Meier, & M. Verloo, Policy making. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. L. Weldon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and politics (2013, p. 691). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0027.
66.
See, e.g., P. Paxton, M. M. Hughes, & T. D. Barnes, Introduction to women in politics. In P. Paxton, M. M. Hughes, & T. D. Barnes (Eds.), Women, politics and power: A global perspective (4th ed., 2021, pp. 1–27). Rowman & Littlefield.
67.
Chappell, The State and Governance, pp. 603–606, 616; see further Sawer, Sisters in suits; H. Eisenstein, Inside agitators: Australian femocrats and the state. Temple University Press, 1996; S. Franzway, D. Court, & R. W. Connell, Staking a claim: Feminism, bureaucracy and the state. Allen & Unwin, 1989.
68.
Chappell, The state and governance, pp. 607–608; L. Chappell & G. Waylen, Gender and the hidden life of institutions. Public Administration, 91(3), 2013, pp. 599–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02104.x.
69.
See, e.g., L. Chappell, Gendering government: Feminist engagement with the state in Australia and Canada. UBC Press, 2002; C. Johnson & M. Tremblay, Comparing same-sex marriage in Australia and Canada: Institutions and political will. Government and Opposition, 53(1), 2018, pp. 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2016.36.
70.
A. Moreton, Talkin’ up to the White woman: Indigenous women and feminism (20th anniversary ed.). University of Queensland Press, 2020.
71.
C. Johnson, Social democracy and the crisis of equality: Australian social democracy in a changing world. Springer, 2019, pp. 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6299-6; C. Johnson, Does capitalism really need patriarchy? Some old issues reconsidered. Women’s Studies International Forum, 19(3), 1996, pp. 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(96)00013-1.
72.
J. Blatter & M. Haverland, Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 144–203. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137016669.
73.
See, e.g., Brown, States of injury.
74.
J. Butler, Is kinship always already heterosexual? Differences, 13(1), 2002, pp. 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-13-1-14; C. Johnson, Fixing the meaning of marriage.
75.
N. Fraser, Fortunes of Feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. Verso, 2013, p. 4; see further N. Fraser, The end of progressive neoliberalism. Dissent, 2 January 2017. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser. Accessed 15 April 2024; N. Fraser, The old is dying and the new cannot be born: From progressive Neoliberalism to Trump and beyond. Verso, 2019; C. Arruzza, T. Bhattacharye, & N. Fraser, Feminism for the 99 per cent: A manifesto. Verso, 2019.
76.
Although the term discourse has been used in a variety of ways, see, e.g., J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Taylor & Francis, 2013.
77.
See the account of existing arguments in D. Béland, Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 2009, pp. 704–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983382.
78.
C. Ryan & W. A. Gamson, The Art of reframing political debates. Contexts, 5(1), 2006, p. 13. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.1.13.
79.
F. Fischer, Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 85.
80.
On path dependency see further, P. Pierson, Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 2000, pp. 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011; D. C. Grube, Sticky words? Towards a theory of rhetorical path dependency. Australian Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 2016, pp. 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1171824.
81.
E. Lombardo & M. Forest, The Europeanization of gender equality policies: A Discursive-Sociological approach. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 14.
82.
E. Lombardo, P. Meier, & M. Verloo, Stretching and bending gender equality: A discursive politics approach. In E. Lombardo, P. Meier, & M. Verloo (Eds.), The discursive politics of gender equality: Stretching, bending and policy making (2009, pp. 1, 3). Routledge.
83.
Lombardo, Meier, & Verloo, Stretching and bending gender equality, pp. 4–5.
84.
C. Bacchi, Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Sage, 1999, p. 207.
85.
R. Cavaghan, Making gender equality happen: Knowledge, change and resistance in EU gender mainstreaming (2017, pp. 63–64). Routledge.
86.
S. Tofts-Len & A. Barker, Occupational gender segregation 2023, Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), Melbourne, 2023, p. 12. https://cedakenticomedia.blob.core.windows.net/cedamediacontainer/kentico/media/attachments/occupational-gender-segregation-ceda_1.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2023; CEDA is a long established, independent body founded in 1960 ‘whose members are leading economists, researchers and policy experts’. Tofts-Len & Barker, Occupational gender segregation 2023, p. 3; CEDA, Our Story. CEDA, 2022. https://www.ceda.com.au/About/Our-Story. Accessed 1 May 2023.
87.
C. Annesley, Gender, politics and policy change: The case of welfare reform under New Labour. Government and Opposition, 45(1), 2010, pp. 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2009.01304.x.
88.
For the author’s more extended case for using both the terms ideology and discourse, and their relevance for Australian politics, see C. Johnson, Governing change: From Keating to Howard (2nd ed.). Network Books, 2007, pp. 13–22; on broader debates see M. Freeden & M. Stears (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political ideologies. Oxford University Press, 2013; A. Vincent, Modern political ideologies (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
89.
M. Rönnblom, Bending towards growth: Discursive constructions of gender equality in an era of governance and neoliberalism. In E. Lombardo, P. Meier, & M. Verloo (Eds.), The discursive politics of gender equality: Stretching, bending and policy making (2009, p. 109). Routledge; S. Childs & P. Webb, Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party: From Iron Lady to Kitten Heels. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 117. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230354227; Fraser, Fortunes of Feminism, pp. 209–223; K. Wilson, Towards a radical re-appropriation: Gender, development and neoliberal feminism. Development and Change, 46(4), 2015, pp. 803–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12176.
90.
S. Jacquot, Transformations in EU gender equality: From emergence to dismantling. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, p. 176. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137436573; see further P. Ahrens, Actors, institutions, and the making of EU gender equality programs. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, pp. 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57060-4. For the articulation of market and gender equality norms in former communist countries in Europe, see, e.g., C. M. Hassenstab, Introduction: Never the “Right” time. In C. M. Hassenstab & S. P. Rammet (Eds.), Gender (in)equality and gender politics in Southeastern Europe: A question of justice (2015, pp. 3–16). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449924_1.
91.
M. Ferber & J. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond economic man. University of Chicago Press, 1993; A. Agenjo-Calderón & L. Gálvez-Muñoz, Feminist economics: Theoretical and political dimensions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(1), 2019, pp. 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12264; R. Sharp & R. Broomhill, Short-changed: Women and economic policies. Allen & Unwin, 1989.
92.
M. Sawer, Australia: The fall of the femocrat. In J. Outshoorn & J. Kantola (Eds.), Changing state feminism (2007, p. 20). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591424_2. For an analysis of a neoliberal focus on facilitating individual capability, see K. Jayasuriya, Statecraft, welfare and the politics of inclusion. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, pp. 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503328.
93.
Sawer, Banaszak, True and Kantola, Introduction to the Handbook of Feminist Governance, p. 3; C. Johnson, Gender research and discursive policy framing. In M. Sawer & K. Baker (Eds.), Gender innovation in political science: New norms, new knowledge (2019, pp. 195–218). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75850-3_10.
94.
E. Humphrys, How Labour Built Neoliberalism: Australia’s accord, the labour movement and the Neoliberal project. Brill, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004383463; Johnson, Governing change, pp. 70–87; Johnson, Social democracy and the crisis of equality, pp. 57–74.
95.
A. Elomäki, Economization of expert knowledge about gender equality in the European Union. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 28(4), Winter 2021, pp. 1162–1184. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxaa005.
96.
C. Johnson, Gender, emotion and political discourse: Masculinity, femininity and populism. In O. Feldman (Ed.), The Rhetoric of political leadership: Logic and emotion in public discourse (2020, pp. 16–33). Edward Elgar; C. Johnson, Feeling protected: Protective masculinity and femininity from Donald Trump and Joe Biden to Jacinda Ardern. Emotions and Society, 4(1), 2022, pp. 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1332/263169021X16310949038420.
97.
C. Johnson, The gendered identities of Australian political leaders: From Hawkie to ScoMo. In Z. Ghazarian & K. Lee-Koo (Eds.), Gender politics: Navigating political leadership in Australia (2021, pp. 11–23). New South Publishing; C. Johnson, From Obama to Abbott: Gender identity and the politics of emotion. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(75), 2013, pp. 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2012.759311.
98.
See S. Childs & S. Palmieri, Gender-sensitive parliaments: Feminising formal political institutions. In M. Sawer, L. A. Banaszak, J. True, & J. Kantola (Eds.), Handbook of feminist governance (2023, pp. 174–188). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800374812.00021.
99.
See further Johnson, From Obama to Abbott.
100.
Sawer, Feminist political science, p. 100.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Carol Johnson

Authors

Carol Johnson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Johnson .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Johnson, C. (2024). In the Frame: Women and the Discursive Construction of Gender Equality in Theory and Practice. In: The Politics of Gender Equality. Gender and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64816-8_1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64816-8_1
Published: 23 August 2024
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-64815-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-64816-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics