Gender Equality and Article 14 ECHR

A 12-Year North American Longitudinal Study of Gender Equity and Equality in Gastroenterology

This longitudinal evaluation of gender inequalities and economic growth addresses key questions in the evolving debate over the character of gender differentiation and the goals of womens empowerment. These questions include: 1) whether the impact of strategies of economic growth served to enhance or undermine the status of women; 2) whether changes in the status of women were accompanied by significant changes in gender inequality; and 3) the implications for existing debates. Section I reviews several sets of literature pertinent to the questions using three general approaches: modernization-neoclassical women in development and gender and development. Section II presents the data and methods used in the evaluation. The research assessed the contending interpretations reviewed in the first section by combining another set of cross-sectional and longitudinal data on womens status and inequalities between men and women with other existing indicators. Section III discusses the results in the following order: 1) cross-sectional patterns in womens status; 2) trends in womens status; 3) cross-sectional patterns in inequality between men and women; 4) trends in inequality between men and women; and 5) conclusion. Finally section IV presents an overall discussion of the findings of the whole longitudinal evaluation.

ABSTRACTBackground: In the Peruvian Amazon, historical events of colonization and political marginalization intersect with identities of ethnicity, class and geography in the construction of gender and health inequities. Gender-based inequalities can manifest in poor health outcomes via discriminatory practices, healthcare system imbalances, inequities in health research, and differential exposures and vulnerabilities to diseases. Structural violence is a comprehensive framework to explain the mechanisms by which social forces such as poverty, racism and gender inequity become embodied as individual experiences and health outcomes, and thus may be a useful tool in structuring an intersectional analysis of gender and health inequities in Amazonian Peru.Objective: The aim of this paper is to explore the intersection of gender inequities with other social inequalities in the production of health and disease in Peru’s Amazon using a structural violence approach.Design: Exploratory qualitative research was performed in two Loreto settings – urban Iquitos and the rural Lower Napo River region – between March and November 2015. This included participant observation with prolonged stays in the community, 46 semi-structured individual interviews and three group discussions. Thematic analysis was performed to identify emerging themes related to gender inequalities in health and healthcare and how these intersect with layered social disadvantages in the reproduction of health and illness. We employed a structural violence approach to construct an intersectional analysis of gender and health inequities in Amazonian Peru.Results: Our findings were arranged into five interrelated domains within a gender, structural violence and health model: gender as a symbolic institution, systemic gender-based violence, interpersonal violence, the social determinants of health, and other health outcomes. Each domain represents one aspect of the complex associations between gender, gender inequity and health. Through this model, we were able to explore: gender, health and intersectionality; structural violence; and to highlight particular local gender and health dynamics. Intersecting influences of poverty, ethnicity, geography and gender served as significant barriers to healthcare in both rural and urban settings.

IntroductionGendered practices of working life create gender inequalities through horizontal and vertical gender segregation in work, which may lead to inequalities in health between women and men. Gender equality could therefore be a key element of health equity in working life. Our aim was to analyze what gender (in)equality means for the employees at a woman-dominated workplace and discuss possible implications for health experiences.MethodsAll caregiving staff at two workplaces in elder care within a municipality in the north of Sweden were invited to participate in the study. Forty-five employees participated, 38 women and 7 men. Seven focus group discussions were performed and led by a moderator. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the focus groups.ResultsWe identified two themes. "Advocating gender equality in principle" showed how gender (in)equality was seen as a structural issue not connected to the individual health experiences. "Justifying inequality with individualism" showed how the caregivers focused on personalities and interests as a justification of gender inequalities in work division. The justification of gender inequality resulted in a gendered work division which may be related to health inequalities between women and men. Gender inequalities in work division were primarily understood in terms of personality and interests and not in terms of gender.ConclusionThe health experience of the participants was affected by gender (in)equality in terms of a gendered work division. However, the participants did not see the gendered work division as a gender equality issue. Gender perspectives are needed to improve the health of the employees at the workplaces through shifting from individual to structural solutions. A healthy-setting approach considering gender relations is needed to achieve gender equality and fairness in health status between women and men.

Gender equality in emergency medicine: Ignorance isn't bliss.

Even though breastfeeding is typically considered the preferred feeding method for infants worldwide, in Belgium, breastfeeding rates remain low across native and migrant groups while the underlying determinants are unclear. Furthermore, research examining contextual effects, especially regarding gender (in)equality and ideology, has not been conducted. We hypothesized that greater gender equality scores in the country of origin will result in higher breastfeeding chances. Because gender equality does not operate only at the contextual level but can be mediated through individual level resources, we hypothesized the following for maternal education: higher maternal education will be an important positive predictor for exclusive breastfeeding chances in Belgium, but its effects will differ over subsequent origin countries. Based on IKAROS data (GeÏntegreerd Kind Activiteiten en Regio Ondersteunings Systeem), we perform multilevel analyses on 27 936 newborns. Feeding method is indicated by exclusive breastfeeding 3 months after childbirth. We measure gender (in)equality using Global Gender Gap scores from the mother's origin country. Maternal education is a metric variable based on International Standard Classification of Education indicators. Results show that 3.6% of the variation in breastfeeding can be explained by differences between the migrant mother's country of origin. However, the effect of gender (in)equality appears to be non-significant. After adding maternal education, the effect for origin countries scoring low on gender equality turns significant. Maternal education on its own shows strong positive association with exclusive breastfeeding and, furthermore, has different effects for different origin countries. Possible explanations are discussed in-depth setting direction for further research regarding the different pathways gender (in)equality and maternal education affect breastfeeding. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

ABSTRACTAccording to recent research, the impact of awareness‐raising interventions about gender (in)equality depends on how messages are framed. Extending previous work, we conducted an experimental study (N = 1093; 50% women) to examine whether the combination of two frames about gender (in)equality (emphasizing the achievement of gender equality and the persistence of gender inequality) had more positive effects on attitudes toward women and gender equality of women and men than each framing individually. Additionally, we considered the mediating role of identity threat and cognitive unfreezing, and the moderating role of participants’ neosexism and feminist identification. The results showed that the combined frame, compared to the gender inequality persistence‐frame, reduced identity threat and improved attitudes toward women and gender equality solely among women. We also found that the combined framing, compared to the equality framing, increased cognitive unfreezing and improved women's and non‐sexist men's attitudes toward women and gender equality. However, for non‐sexist women, this framing was less beneficial than the inequality framing. In conclusion, the present study highlights the need to examine both the possible mechanisms involved and the gender ideology of individuals whenever interventions targeting gender equality are designed.

Similar to many creative (and other) industries, the film and television industries have for long been permeated by male norms, and by the male worker as the norm. In this context, women workers have always been considered "oddities" – unless they have acted in front of the camera. To a large extent, women have been (and still are) image (Fischer, 1976; Mulvey, 1975). Women's work behind the camera have been counteracted, not least through efforts to exclude them from positions characterized as "creative" or "above-the-line" such as director, producer, and script writer. Further, women have been met with pervading difficulties in allocating finances for their projects and with circumscribed possibilities to have their work screened in the cinema. And although (a few) women are key through their function as "image," films with a woman protagonist are usually provided with a lesser budget than films with a male lead, and women actors get distinctly less paid than their male counterparts (SFI, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2017/08/22/full-list-the-worlds-highest-paid-actors-and-actresses-2017/?sh=2e1c961f3751). Let us give an example of the former: in the Swedish film industry, recently hailed worldwide of being one of the most gender equal screening industries, feature films made between 2013 and 2016 differed in terms of budget depending on the whether the protagonist in a film was male or female. Films with a male lead had on average a 33% higher budget than films with a woman lead. In that same period, women feature film directors had on average a budget ranging between 66% and 86% of the budget of films with a man as director (SFI, 2018). The report published in 2018, by the Swedish Film Institute, concluded that: "[films with women in] key functions generally have overall lower budgets than men" (SFI, 2018, p. 17). Following the international impact that the #Metoo-movement has had and still has, and the recent demands for a 50/50 dispersion between men and women on above-the-line positions in the film industry, gender issues have advanced to the forefront in discussions dealing with the working situation in the film and screen industries. These discussions have appeared in various national contexts in print and social media, as well as in academic work (see, e.g., Jansson et al., 2020; Liddy, 2020; Marghitu, 2018; Meziani & Cabantous, 2020; O'Brien, 2019). It has become obvious that gender inequality pervades all screen industries, large and small, and that women screen workers in different national screen contexts share similar experiences. As film and television production is becoming more and more globalized, with single productions often being the outcome a variety of regional and national industries, finances and competences, working and gendered experiences of being in the industry are also becoming increasingly globalized. Still, there are regional and local differences in how women screen workers experience their work and career situation and these need to be addressed. There are also various aspects of screen work that remain to be tended to academically. Hence, this special section offers a sample of national and local studies that all investigate how gender and equality work is done in four different contexts. It is our hope that this small sample may inspire not only more studies of national contexts, but also inspire to future cross-national studies. Before discussing how various academic fields have engaged with the screening industries in terms of work experience and representation, we wish to point out that film and television, as two available media formats reaching large and heterogeneous audiences, constitute two of the most central expressions of our time, and that both contribute to reflect and mold our understanding of society, of others – and of ourselves (de Lauretis, 1987; Dyer, 1993). Questions about who is allowed to make film and TV and what messages and images are presented and conveyed are thus politically important and imperative. The long-standing male dominance in the industry, together with the realization that images do matter, has sparked an interest in studying gender in the screen industries. The gender conditions in the film industry have attracted scholarly attention across the variety of disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities, and this special section is a vivid example of this cross-disciplinary scholarship. Three specific, but interrelated fields stand out when it comes to the study of gendered work and inequalities in these industries: production studies, management and life work studies, and studies of women's presence and conditions in screen work. In management studies and work life research, the early 2000s saw an increased interest in focusing and exploring the working conditions in the screening industries, alongside the growing interest for working experiences in what often referred to as the creative industries (see, e.g., Blair, 2001; Delmestri et al., 2005; Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009; French, 2020; Jones & Pringle, 2015; Meziani & Cabantous, 2020; Soila-Wadman, 2003; Sörensen & Villadsen, 2014). This strand has also included a certain focus on how film can be used as a tool for instruction on how to exert leadership (see, e.g., Bell & Sinclair, 2016). Parallel to this development is the emergence of production studies, emanating from film and television studies. This field explores film and media as cultural practices of media production, and it does so from a variety of perspectives and with various methods. Of particular pertinence here is the sub-field of feminist production studies. This field engages in studying how "routines and rituals […], the economic and political forces […] shape roles, technologies, and the distribution of resources according to cultural and demographic differences" (Mayer et al., 2009, p. 4) in order to understand how "power operates locally through media production to reproduce social hierarchies and inequalities at the level of daily interaction" (Mayer, 2009, p. 15). One of the field's most important contributions here is the critique of the "auteurist" view that films are the "voice" of one single artist, most often the director. Instead, they argue that films are the result of collective work. Departing from this insight, production studies scholars have noted the importance of studying the work that is carried out in the margins, to question the differentiation between "creative" and "craft" professions in film making, and to pay attention to the work done "below-the-line" by workers in the film industry who are seldom credited, but without whose work films would not be produced (see, e.g., Banks, 2009, 2018; Banks et al., 2016; Mayer, 2009, 2011; Mayer et al., 2009). Alongside these two areas of research, there is a third, and more recent, strand that is dedicated to studying women's presence, analyzing policy measures targeting gender (in)equality along with studying impediments to gender equality in the film industry and women's conditions in a male dominated screening industry. This strand of research comes out of feminist media studies as a rather broad field, encompassing both the humanities and the social sciences. While research in both management studies and productions studies constitute important foundations for any research conducted on gender and screen work, for this special section, it is this third strand that is of most relevance, taken that it embraces and explores both local and the global aspects of women's conditions in the male dominated screening industries. Let us therefore shortly present this strand a bit more – and the issues it has raised – in order to give a contextualization of this special section and its four articles. Studies of women's presence in the film industry have mapped the number of women behind the camera, sometimes also including an intersectional analysis and identified gendered budget-gaps and other impediments to gender equality (Cobb, 2020; Lauzen, 2019; Liddy, 2020; Smith et al., 2013). Much of this research is conducted in the United States, discussing the conditions in a film industry that is exclusively driven by private, and most often commercial, stakeholders. In other commercially focused film centers such as Bollywood in India and Nollywood in Nigeria, women behind the screen are reported to be few and the representation of women on screen stereotypical (Mukherjee, 2018; Prakash, 2020; Ukata, 2020). In other contexts, such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, where there is public support for film production, gender equality is often proclaimed to be a goal. For instance, the Council of Europe (2017) declared its dedication to gender equality in film production in the so-called Sarajevo-declaration, and according to a mapping carried out by the European Audiovisual Observatory in 2019, 15 EU countries have introduced gender equality measures (EAO, 2019, p. 16). In a recent anthology collecting evidence from a number of countries, media scholar Susan Liddy concludes that while demands for gender equality has been voiced by women in all contexts, public funding institutions range from those being "gender blind… to those who theoretically commit to equality but prevaricate on the best measures to implement change to others who have introduced formal gender policies and intervention strategies" (Liddy, 2020, p. 2). Scholars have pointed to several problems with gender equality policies and reforms in the film sector: they are often vague and without a plan for implementation (Thorsen, 2020), they only reach those who are involved in projects actually funded by public means (Cobb & Williams, 2020), and they lack intersectional intention and reach (Cobb & Williams, 2020; Thorsen, 2020). Further, when reforms are implemented, problems arise because making films include a range of different stakeholders and parties, which are out of reach of government policies (Jansson, 2016), and because the film industry is entrenched with institutionalized norms and values that is difficult to change and which tend to reduce the effects of policies (Jansson, 2017; Jansson & Wallenberg, 2020). Scholars investigating women's conditions in the film industry have for a long time indicated that the way the industry is organized both formally and informally benefits white men. The sexual division of labor in the organization is manifested in women being found on positions such as script supervisors, costume designers, and make-up artists, as well as in various below-the-line positions. Many below-the-line professions are dominated by men, and the female dominated positions such as the ones mentioned above, tend to have lower status (Banks, 2009). Scholars have also noted differences in status among above-the-line professions. For instance, while male directors and scriptwriters are considered to be able to "carry" a movie, women directors and scriptwriters are not considered to do so (Bielby & Bielby, 1996, Eikhof and Cole in this issue). The trope of the male genius has been discussed as a hindrance to gender equality in several studies (see, e.g., Lantz, 2007; Marghitu, 2018; Regev, 2016; Schatz, 1988; and by Jansson et al. in this special section). Studies have also looked into how other features of the way the film industry is organized affects gender and concluded that the outcome of networking differs substantially to the favor of men (Grugulis & Stoyanova, 2012). Moreover, mothering duties limits women's possibilities in an industry where long days and extremely intense periods of work away from home are considered to be the normal procedure (Liddy, 2017; Liddy & O'Brien, 2021; O'Brien, 2015, 2019; Wing-Fai et al., 2015; Wreyford, 2013). Considering all these past (and recent) studies, there is no doubt that the screening industries – as production sites and as workplaces – are of definite interest to scholars within different disciplines. This special section aims at addressing some of the issues that recent scholarship has touched upon and tried to tackle, and it does so from four different national and cultural contexts. At the center of all four articles included in the section is the analysis of women's conditions in the screening industries, including their experiences of working and trying to get by – and of how these industries continue to foster the notion of women film workers as "oddities" in an industry that continues to uphold the idea of the genius as male. Let us now turn to the four articles included in this special section. In our first article, "The price of motherhood in the Irish film and television industries," media scholars Susan Liddy and Anne O'Brien discuss the continuous problems that surround motherhood and screen work, finding in their material evidence that there is a systemic bias against mothers, not only as women, but also as women and mothers, and that mothers have internalized the marginalization that comes from their maternal status. They have also found that many mothers adapted ways that would help them to sustain their working lives, but they were rarely supported in those adaptations by the screen production industry. In "'Almost a European, but not quite': Experiences of Female Employees in the Lithuanian Film Industry from the Postcolonial Point of View," authors Lina Kaminskaite and Jelena Salaj discuss how the women filmmakers experience their conditions in a film industry that is still marked by the transformation of Lithuania from being part of the Soviet union to becoming a country which is a member of the EU. They argue that the Lithuanian film industry is characterized by being in a postcolonial state. While the opening up of Lithuania has meant new possibilities for women film workers, it has also presented difficulties and the negotiation of new identities and new mode of film production. Doris Ruth Eikhof and Amanda Cole focus on how women are considered a risk in film production and how this leads to precarious conditions for women in the industry. In their article named, "On the basis of risk: Screen directors and gender inequality," they use the intersectional risk theory to understand how gender inequality is related to risk management practices in the screen industry. Studying two specific gender equality initiatives in the Canadian film industry, they show how risk management is gendered, and they argue that risk plays an important part in decision making in the industry. By understanding how risk is gendered, they argue, it is possible to change the processes that decides how risk is understood. The last article included in this special section departs from the much-debated aspect of film production, namely the final saying over a film's final format. In "The Final Cut," authors Maria Jansson, Frantzeska Papadopoulou, Ingrid Stigsdotter, and Louise Wallenberg discuss how the relationship between film director and producer serve to reproduce gendered relations that position the male creator and producer as norm – even in contexts where both director and producer are women. Departing from a series of interviews made with mostly women working in these two professions, the authors show how these two above-the-line professions are still governed by the malestream and that they tend to be constructed in relation to masculinity. Clearly, even in a country like Sweden, often hailed for its equality work, the gender equality measures that are undertaken are not sufficient to come to grips with gender inequalities and the male norm. Taken together the four articles shed light on different aspects of the film industry. The evidence provided from the different countries indicate that there are many similarities in the challenges that women in the film industry face. However, there are also differences depending on context. The article about Lithuania shows the importance of situating the film industry in a historical and political context. O'Brian and Liddy show in their article, the importance of understanding the specific context of how child care and the welfare state play out in order to capture women's conditions in film and television work. Eikhof and Cole's article demonstrates the necessity of applying an intersectional approach in order to also see differences in conditions between women, even if they work in the same industry and the same country. The article on Sweden, finally, looks deeper into how specific gender equality policies targeting the film industry plays out, and what problems remain, after having been implemented for almost 20 years. We believe that this special section is one step toward a deeper understanding of how gender shapes the working conditions in the film industry, and hope that it will inspire further research that takes a wider, more inclusive and possibly also more comparative grip on women screen worker's experiences and work conditions. This work was supported by the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond under Grant no. P17-0079:1. No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors. The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and/or its supplementary materials.

Socioeconomic challenges to adaptation and mitigation partly hinge on gender (in)equality. A world of equal opportunities for self-realization would be a markedly different place, in ways that are of substantial relevance for adressing climate change. The opposite holds too: in a world of stagnating, or worsening gender inequality, differences in access to resources, education or employment may reduce capacities of societies to both mitigate and adapt.   Integrated assessment and climate impact models rely heavily on scenarios to understand implications of different socioeconomic futures. In the context of gender equality, these models and scenarios can also serve as tools for broadening our understanding of how societies’ capacities to adapt to and mitigate climate change are enabled or constrained if, broadly speaking, half of their population would gain access to or be further deprived of resources and decision-making power. In this paper, we propose that the dominant framework of socioeconomic scenarios – the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) – should be extended to explicitly represent indicators of gender equality and their interlinkages with other facets of development. The original narratives underlying the SSP scenarios do feature assumptions about gender equality as part of the demographic elements, with educational attainment and its effect on reducing fertility and therefore population size as the main driver of socio-economic changes (O’Neill et al., 2017). However, only a systematic incorporation into narratives and endogenization of gender (in)equality, can enable the scenarios to reflect ways in which different levels of gender equality could increase or reduce challenges to adaptation and mitigation, and the implications of these challenges for dealing with climate risks. This also applies for other scenario-based work in sustainability and climate change research, for example in devising local energy transition policies whose justice element might be contingent on whether they consider gender aspects. The need for more nuanced accounts of gender has also been highlighted in the context of representation of inequalities in Integrated Assessment Model (IAMs), where gender equality is highlighted as one of the crucial factors when considering climate impacts and policies, their distributional implications and costs (Emmerling and Tavoni, 2021).   We cover some of the myriad connections between gender and climate from the literature to build the case for why comprehensive assessments of future risks of climate change and of socioeconomic development can benefit from more concrete incorporation of gender aspects in their analyses. We discuss adaptation and mitigation challenges and their interplay with gender. A particular focus is on quantitative models of future societal transformations and assessments of their implications for climate change. We then argue that scenarios can help imagine a world of parity or lack thereof, and show how the SSP framework may change after accounting for gender equality. At the end we discuss how these conceptual and practical advances can feed into more nuanced climate change research and better-informed policy options. 

The European Union (EU) has been characterized as a “gender regime” with its distinctive patterns of gender (in)equalities and path dependencies. Gender equality policies have developed as a genuine policy field over the past decades from a single treaty article to a comprehensive legal and political framework dealing with multiple sources of discrimination. Besides, gender equality policies are frequently linked to other political projects and policy goals. Gender equality is often presented as a foundational value of the EU with reference to the Treaties of Amsterdam and Lisbon. Research has pointed out that it is an important aspect of the foundational myth of the EU. The development of gender equality policies has been characterized by alternations between progress and stagnation. These policies are also met by resistance. However, a general conclusion is that EU institutions have been important catalysts in shaping women’s economic, political, and social equality in Europe and in putting equality rights into effect. Historical, political, and sociological interpretations of the EU’s gender equality policies illustrate these dynamics. Gender equality policies are described in terms of the following phases: the 1970s (associated with women’s civil and economic rights and equal treatment), the 1980s (equal opportunities, positive action), and the 1990s (gender mainstreaming in the whole union and for all policy areas). Since the 2000s, a fourth phase of new policies against multiple discrimination has been developing. These different stages of EU gender policy continue to coexist. When the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force in 1999, the EU committed to a new approach to work for gender equality through mainstreaming. Gender equality and nondiscrimination became guiding legal principles of the union. The Treaty of Lisbon reflects core vaues of the EU such as democracy, human rights and gender equality. One can approach gender equality policies as situated between concerns for gender equality and multiple discrimination on the one hand and priorities of economy and finance on the other. Critical voices in the literature have pointed out that these priorities have outperformed ideas about gender equality. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, EU austerity policies represent a “critical juncture” that could undo the long-term progress achieved in gender equality in Europe. Besides, gender equality policies suffer from a gap between institutionalization on the one hand and a lack of consistency and full political commitment on the other. In a context of a more permanent crisis scenario in the EU, gender equality policies are undergoing transformations and they are subject to change to the worse. A key point is that dynamic gender relations, multiple discrimination, and women’s various roles in society matter for understanding the EU and European integration. This raises questions about the EU’s role as a driving force for gender equality and against multiple discrimination. What happened to gender equality policies and to gendered effects of other policies as a result of the various crises in the EU?

Contents: Preface. S.S. Klein with C. Kramarae and B. Richardson, Examining the Achievement of Gender Equity in and Through Education. B. Richardson, Part I: Facts and Assumptions About the Nature and Value of Gender Equity. J. Hyde, S.M. Lindberg, Facts and Assumptions About the Nature of Gender Differences and the Implications for Gender Equity. N. Stromquist, Gender Equity Education Globally. B. Richardson, P. Sandoval, Impact of Education on Gender Equity in Employment and Its Outcomes. D. Grayson, Part II: Administrative Strategies for Implementing Gender Equity. M. Nash, S.S. Klein, B. Bitters, S. Hobbs, W. Howe, L. Shevitz, L. Wharton, The Role of Government in Advancing Gender Equity in Education.C. Shakeshaft, G. Brown, B.J. Irby, M. Grogan, J. Ballenger, Increasing Gender Equity in Educational Leadership. D. Sadker, K. Zittleman, P. Earley, T. McCormick, C. Strawn, J-A. Preston, The Treatment of Gender Equity in Teacher Education. L. Fox, Part III: General Educational Practices for Promoting Gender Equity. D. Reed, L. Fox, M.L. Andrews, N. Betz, J.P. Evenstad, A. Harris, C. Hightower-Parker, J. Johnson, S. Johnson, B. Polnick, P. Rosser, Gender Equity in Testing and Assessment. E. Arms, Gender Equity in Coeducational and Single Sex Educational Environments. G. Abbott, L. Bievenue, S. Damarin, C. Kramarae with G. Jepkemboi and C. Strawn, Gender Equity in the Use of Educational Technology. M.A. Paludi with L. Nydegger, J. Martin, C.A. Paludi, Jr., Sexual Harassment: The Hidden Gender Equity Problem. C. Kramarae, Part IV: Gender Equity Strategies in the Content Areas. C. Lacampagne, P. Campbell, S. Damarin, A. Herzig, C. Vogt, Gender Equity in Mathematics. C. Burger, G. Abbott, S. Tobias, J. Koch, C. Vogt, with L. Bievenue, D. Carlito, T. Sosa, and C. Strawn, Gender Equity in Science, Engineering, and Technology. A. Taylor, A. Bailey, P. Cooper, C.A. Dwyer, C. Kramarae, B. Lieb, Gender Equity in Communication Skills. C. Brantmeier, J. Wilde, J. Schueller, C. Kinginger, Gender Equity in Foreign and Second Language Learning. C.L. Hahn, J. Bernard-Powers, M. Crocco, C. Woyshner, Gender Equity in Social Studies. E. Garber, R. Sandell, M.A. Stankiewicz, D. Risner, with G. Collins, K. Congdon, M. Floyd, M. Jaksch, P. Speirs, S. Springgay, E. Zimmerman, and R. Irwin, Gender Equity in Visual Arts and Dance Education. E. Staurowsky, N. Hogshead-Makar, M.J. Kane, E. Wughalter, A. Yiamouyiannis, P. Lerner, Gender Equity in Physical Education and Athletics. J. DeLamater, Gender Equity in Formal Sexuality Education. M.E. Lufkin, M. Wiberg, C.R. Jenkins, T. Boyer, E. Eardley, J. Huss, Gender Equity in Career and Technical Education. B. Eudey, with E. Correa, S. Lukas, The Role of Women's and Gender Studies in Advancing Gender Equity. D. Pollard, Part V: Gender Equity Strategies for Diverse Populations. O.M. Welch, F.E. Patterson, K.A. Scott, D. Pollard, Gender Equity for African Americans. A. Ginorio, M. Vasquez, Y. Lapayese, Gender Equity for Latina/os. M. Spencer, Y. Inoue, G.P. McField, Gender Equity for Asian and Pacific Island Americans. A. Calhoun, M. Goeman, M. Tsethlikai, Gender Equity for American Indians. J. Kosciw, E. Byard, S.N. Fischer, C. Joslin, Gender Equity and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Education. L. Fox, J. Soller, Gender Equity for Gifted Students. D. Mertens, A. Wilson, J. Mounty, Gender Equity for People With Disabilities. C.A. Dwyer, Part VI: Gender Equity From Early Through Postsecondary Education. B. Polnick, C. Dwyer, D. Fromberg, M. Froschl, C.F. Haynie, B. Sprung, Gender Equity in Early Learning Environments. J. Cooper, P. Eddy, J. Hart, J. Lester, S. Lukas, B. Eudey, J. Glazer-Raymo, M. Madden, Improving Gender Equity in Postsecondary Education. S.S. Klein, Summary and Recommendations for Achieving Gender Equity in and Through Education.

This bibliometric analysis explores the relationship between “gender budgeting” and “gender equality”, based on data retrieved from Scopus on September, 23rd 2024, using the query (TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Gender Budgeting") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Gender Equality") AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English"). The study maps key thematic clusters using VOSviewer and R studio, focusing on the frequency and co-occurrence of terms. Gender budgeting (f=20) and gender equality (f=8) were the most prominent terms. Gender budgeting and gender equality are interconnected through exacerbated connections. Gender budgeting predominates in discussions, linking policy formulation, execution tactics, and socio-economic effects. Gender equality, conversely, progresses through academic discourse and fosters advancements in society gender policy. These interconnections underscore the necessity of comprehending and overcoming gender inequities in policy formulation.

Over the past few decades, Sweden has established itself as a “world leader” in gender equality. Alongside this development, Swedish politicians have also initiated ambitious plans that aim to establish the country as “world class” in terms of digitalization. International research shows that women and racialized groups are in a minority in the design processes, that AI facial recognition systems are built with white male faces as the norm, and that digital tools replicate racial injustices. In this paper, we are interested in if, and if so how, gender equality is articulated and thus filled with meaning in national policies on AI and digitalization. The overall aim is to discuss the potential of gender (equality) mainstreaming to challenge systems of privilege in the implementation of AI systems in the public sector. The paper analyses how gender equality is filled with meaning in national policy documents on AI and gender equality. The main findings show that gender equality is turned into a question of lack of knowledge and information, which in turn blocks out an understanding of gender equality as something that is related to gendered power relations.

This paper examines gender mainstreaming in European Union (EU) development aid towards Sub-Saharan Africa. The aim is to detect how gender (in)equality in Sub-Saharan Africa is framed by the EU by critically assessing the nature and range of the differences between EU and civil society framings of gender (in)equality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Using the method of Critical Frame Analysis, 28 EU programming documents have been analysed and compared to 10 civil society texts on gender equality. I conclude that the EU’s approach to gender mainstreaming in its development aid towards Sub-Saharan Africa is to a large extent integrationist and predominantly instrumentalist as it is framed as a way of more effectively achieving existing policy goals. The more transformative issues that are put forward by Sub-Saharan African civil society organisations do not t within the EU’s dominant development paradigm that is focused on achieving the Millennium Development Goals and does not signficantly challenge gender relations or power structures. The gap between the analysed civil society views and those expressed by the EU can be explained by the EU’s reluctance to include in its policy drafting the promotion of gender equality by civil society organisations. Moreover, the gap seems to have both practical and ideological grounds. Key words: gender equality, European Union, Sub-Saharan Africa, development policy, civil society, millennium development goals, critical frame analysis

Global measurements have become foundational for understanding gender equality as well as for directing resources and policy development to address gendered inequalities. We argue in this article that attempts to quantify gender (in)equality globally have limited potential for successfully challenging gender hierarchies if compared to internationally agreed upon women’s rights standards. To make this argument, we start by contrasting the general assumptions underlying the measurement approach with feminist scholarship on gender equality. Second, we examine nine key measures of global gender equality—the majority of which are produced by influential international organizations—and show that their focus on “countability” perpetuates a narrow and misleading understanding of gender (in)equality. Third, we present the CEDAW Convention and associated review process as an alternative to the measurement approach. The comparison highlights the need for evaluative tools that attend to the complexity and fluidity of gender norms and focus on context-specific agency to confront gender hierarchies.