Multiple Inequalities,

Intersectionality and Gender

Mainstreaming
Judith Squires
Berlin, 1
st
Feb 2010
Key Questions
Gender mainstreaming in the time of intersectionality
What is gender mainstreaming? Why has it emerged as a
central gender equality strategy and what are its
strengths/weaknesses?
What is intersectionality? Why has it emerged as a central
concern in relation to the multiple inequalities agenda?
Does the emergence of intersectionality as a privileged
policy discourse threaten the gains/potential of gender
mainstreaming practices?


Gender Mainstreaming
UN defines GM as the promotion of a strategy
for making womens as well as mens concerns
and experiences an integral dimension of the
design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of policies and programmes in all
political, economic and societal spheres so that
women and men benefit equally and inequality is
not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve
gender equality. (UN 2002, 2)

Gender Equality
Three phases of gender equality
policies:
Equal treatment 1970s: anti-discrimination
laws, with male comparator
Positive action 1980s: special measures,
recognition of specificity
Gender mainstreaming 1990s: counteract
gender bias in institutional practices

Gender Equality Policies
Inclusion Reversal Displacement
Sameness Difference New norm
Equal
treatment
Positive
action
Gender
mainstreaming
Gender Equality Regime
Global gender equality regime a story of debate,
contestation and dissent in norm development.
(Kardam 2004, 91)
Beijing Platform for Action 1995 calls for use of
positive action in candidate selection to achieve
30% target (para 88)
Beijing Platform for Action 1995 also calls for a
gender perspective to be applied in all policies
and programmes (para 189)

Gender Equality
Cumulative and complementary?
Three-legged stool: interconnectedness
(Booth and Bennett 2002)
Or contested and competing?
GM used as an alternative to previous
positive action policies (Eveline and Bacchi
2005, Stratigaki 2005)
Quotas/Mainstreaming
Gained prominence in
the late 1990s
Framed as a question
of justice and
democracy
Actors: womens
lobby groups,
members of political
parties and legislators
Gained prominence in
the late 1990s
Framed as a question
of modernization and
efficiency
Actors: civil servants,
government ministers,
civil society actors
Quotas/Mainstreaming
Politics: narrow focus
on formal institutions
of political
representation
Representation: focus
on descriptive
Gender: focus on sex
as subject of policy

Politics: wide focus
including bureaucracy
and civil society

Representation: focus
on substantive
Gender: focus on
gender as object of
policy
Competing or complementary?
So, has the emergence of gender
mainstreaming complemented positive
action policies, or undermined them?
No single answer because mainstreaming
itself a contested norm and variable
practice

Norm Diffusion/Adoption
Norm diffusion: norms are promoted
transnationally by advocacy networks (Keck and
Sikkink 1998, True and Mintrom 2001)
Norm adoption: norms are vague, contested and
dynamic (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2008)
Result: rapid norm diffusion, rarely achieving
their intended aims (Krook and True 2009)
Gender Mainstreaming:
contested norm
Strategy Inclusion Reversal
(inversin)
Displacement
(Sustitucin)
Model Integrationist Agenda-setting Transformative
Actors Experts Womens groups Policy networks
Process Bureaucratic Consultative Deliberative
Weakness Rhetorical
Entrapment
Reification Complexity
Gender Mainstreaming
Ratified by all UN member states 1995
Adopted by UN, OECD, World Bank, who
supported developing governments
implementation of GM
Endorsed by Treaty of Amsterdam 1997
By 2001, all EU member states had mechanisms
for GM
Is mainstreaming transformative? (Squires
2005)

Gender Mainstreaming:
Uncertain practice
Not just failing to be transformative, but damaging for
women (Yuval Davis 2005)
Gender entrepreneurs within the institutions of global
governance as key facilitators of mainstreaming (Kardam
2000)
dominant forms of mainstreaming are clearly congruent
with this self-managed model of governance (Bacchi
and Eveline 2004, 103-4)
Conflict between feminist goal of gender equality and
context of neo-liberal goal of efficiency (True 2003,
Teghtsoonian 2004)

Mainstreaming Concerns
Rhetorical entrapment (Verloo 2001, 9)
GM frames gender equality as a derived
objective of economic growth rather than a
question of social justice (Mosesdottir and
Erlingsdottir 2005, 528)
Uses analytic tools (statistics, impact
assessments) rather than political ones
Relies on gender experts and professionalised
NGOs rather than social movement actors
In the time of intersectionality
So when we turn to consider whether/how
the emergence of intersectionality
impacts on the practice of gender
mainstreaming, we must recognise that
mainstreaming is a contested norm,
embracing a wide range of varied
practices, many of them subject to feminist
critique.
Four phases of gender
equality policies
Equal treatment 1970s: anti-discrimination laws,
male comparator
Positive action 1980s: special measures,
recognition of womens specificity
Gender mainstreaming 1990s: counteract
gender bias in institutional practices
Multiple inequalities 2000s: acknowledgement of
multiple inequality strands and of cumulative
discrimination

Multiple Inequalities
Article 13 EC:
Without prejudice to other provisions of this Treaty and within
the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the
Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission
and after consulting the European Parliament, may take
appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial
or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation.
Growing pressures on EU member states to address
multiple inequalities. Institutional and legal reforms
underway across Europe

The emergence of multiple
inequalities
Exogenous pressures in the form of EU Directives
Article 13 in 1999, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations of 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief)
Regulations of 2003.
Mobilisation from equality movements
eg. UK Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 and the
establishment of the Disability Rights Commission in 2000.
Diversity Management
eg. The business case for diversity is becoming harder to resist
as a diverse workforce gives employers a competitive edge.
Britains Deputy Minister for Women 2002
Multiple Inequalities and Anti-
discrimination law
Vertical approach: substantive differences exist between different
grounds Separate legislative instruments needed for individual
grounds to ensure effective protection (eg. Article 141, positive
action re sex discrimination, or Article 29 combating racism):
effective protection.
Eg. UK Discrimination law offers different levels of protection to
different groups. Single Equality Bill (announced 2008), to replace
nine pieces of legislation (including SDA 1975, RRA 1976 and DDA
1995) and c.100 statutory instruments with a single Act.
Horizontal approach: common provisions reduce disparities: equal
protection and efficiency gains. Competing inequalities: the
horizontal approach may extend the scope for conflict between
inequality strands by increasing the number grounds


Multiple Inequalities and Anti-
discrimination law
eg. Ladele v London Borough of Islington: registrar
unable to reconcile her Christian faith with conducting a
civil partnership. Tribunal found the Council to have
placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay
and bisexual and transsexual community than it placed
on the rights of Ms Ladele.
No legal/ethical framework for ranking of relative
importance of claims: religious freedom the right to
theologically based discrimination (Skjeie 2007:474)

Limitations with Horizontal
Approach
Comparator problem:
The need to name discrete grounds of discrimination and to
identify comparator is problematic. Higher threshold of
establishing two separate claims makes it difficult to establish
cumulative discrimination
Judicial problem:
Limitations to using the law to promote equality, judicial
mechanisms limited to an individualised model of equality
Parity problem:
Not clear that all equality strands are of the same order
Multiple Inequalities and
Gender Mainstreaming
Womens Unit (WU) created in 1997: a cross-cutting unit within
Whitehall, created to ensure a coordinated approach to gender
equality across government departments (Squires and Wickham-
Jones 2002). Agenda-setting mainstreaming.
The WU re-launched as the Women and Equality Unit (WEU) in
2001, became sponsor for the EOC and the WNC and took
responsibility for policy on gender equality issues. Integrationist
mainstreaming
WEU replaced by The Government Equalities Office (GEO). GEO
is a self-standing Department, whose mission is to put equality at
the heart of Government. It is responsible for the Governments
overall strategy on equality, (including a new Equality Bill) and
sponsors the EHRC, opened on 1 October 2007

Multiple Inequalities and
Gender Equality Strategies
Renewed focus on anti-discrimination
eg. new Equality Bill, embracing horizontal approach
Loss of womens policy agencies
eg. EOC and WEU replaced by Equality and Human
Rights Commission(Squires 2007)
Loss of commitment to mainstreaming
eg. Both the agenda-setting and the integrationist
forms of GM (Squires and Wickham-Jones 2005)
eclipsed by EHRC
Intersectionality
Feminist support for multiple inequalities agenda
generally framed by a commitment to
intersectionality
UK EOC supported the creation of a single equality
body: it will have the best change of delivering
effective work across all areas of equality on all the
necessary levels i.e. single-strand issues, general
equality issues and inter-sectional or multiple
discrimination issues. (EOC 2003, 1).
But multiple inequalities agenda is NOT
synonymous with intersectionality
Intersectionality
Intersectionality: response to the inability of
singular analyses of inequality to recognise the
complex inter-relation between forms of
oppression (Crenshaw 1991, Marx Ferree 2008,
Prins 2006
Intersectional discrimination exists where the
discrimination is the combined rather than
cumulative product of two or more discriminatory
grounds, yielding an experience which is
qualitatively distinct from the sum of its
discriminatory parts, (Conaghen et al 2007).
Diversity Mainstreaming

Does mainstreaming allow for recognition of combined
inequalities more readily than anti-discrimination and
positive action approaches? (Rees 2002)

Growing use of mainstreaming discourse by other
equality strands (eg. disability mainstreaming) but little
institutional focus on diversity mainstreaming to date
Whether and how it recognises intersectionality will
depend on whether mainstreaming takes an
integrationist, agenda-setting or transformative form
(Squires 2005)

Diversity Mainstreaming
Possible responses to the challenge of multiple
inequalities agenda:
use integrationist mainstreaming to conduct impact
assessments on six strands, plus intersections
use agenda-setting mainstreaming to bring the voices
of groups experiencing combined inequalities in
particular into the policy process
Devise a transformative mainstreaming based on
deliberative participation and intersectional narratives
Conclusion
The emergence of multiple inequalities agenda
does challenge mainstreaming. It does so in
three key ways:
by focusing attention on anti-discrimination laws
by dismantling the womens policy agencies that took
responsibility for GM
by further complicating the already complicated
process of mainstreaming equality considerations into
all policy areas
Challenges
To rethink gender equality strategies in the
context of the multiple equalities agenda,
focusing on:
the parity, judicial and comparator problems in the
emerging horizontal anti-discrimination approach
the shift away from dedicated womens policy
agencies in the multiple inequalities framework
the framing of mainstreaming in terms of neo-liberal
norms of efficiency and economic productivity