Microsoft Word - Erin J. Black_3.doc


Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 

 

 

 

                ………………………………………………………………… 
 

                   EU Equality Commitments and Shifting Meanings of Gender    

               Equality 

                 

               Erin J. Black 

 

 

 

Abstract 
 
This article follows the development of a European Union gender equality regime through three 
broad periods: equal treatment policies, positive action measures, and Gender Mainstreaming. 
The policy-making process entails conflict between competing policy frames; unequal resources 
behind each secures the dominance of an economic frame. Strategical framing practices have 
been employed by equality advocates to overcome this disadvantage. This article traces the 
gradual shifts in meaning within each period until equality goals are integrated into the dominant 
economic policy frame. It concludes that equality advocates need to engage in deeper analyses of 
power in order to sustain attention to equality goals over longer periods of time. 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 53

 
 
Introduction 

 

The European Union (EU) has held commitments to gender equality since the Treaty of 

Rome in 1957. Gender equality is a central commitment of the EU and has expanded into the 

most far-reaching gender regime of any regional organization worldwide. It is essential to 

examine the way in which this regime has developed and the broader context where the 

meanings of gender equality have been negotiated. Economic growth, which has always been a 

fundamental objective and focus of the EU, has been the dominant policy frame and has shaped 

understandings and representations of gender equality concepts within legislation. The 

consequence of considering gender equality from an economic frame has been the gradual 

subordination of equality concepts and their eventual co-optation of meaning in support of the 

pursuit of employment targets and economic growth, rather than equality between women and 

men. Approaches to gender equality adopted by the EU can be grouped into three broad time 

periods: equal treatment measures which were adopted during the 1970s; positive action 

measures which were largely used in the 1980s and 1990s; and Gender Mainstreaming (GM) 

which was introduced in the 1990s. These approaches were initially modeled on feminist 

understandings of equality, but during each period there was a gradual shift back towards 

economic concerns. A historical perspective reveals that the EU has maintained a liberal 

approach to equality as ‘sameness’ and has promoted female participation in the labour market as 

the most suitable way to achieve both equality and employment targets simultaneously.  

Feminists have often created connections between competing policy goals such as equality 

and economic growth in order to find a resonance between them. This resonance increases the 

likelihood that equality goals will be incorporated into the dominant policy agenda. This act of 

creating linkages is known as strategical framing and has been employed by feminists in each of 

the three time periods. Strategical framing has been effective in creating space for equality 

concepts, but over time there has been a gradual shift away from the original meaning of the 

concepts and they have been infused with alternative meanings which support other priorities. 

Such shifts in meaning have occurred incrementally and unevenly. This has resulted in the 

coexistence of policies which reflect conflicting notions of gender equality, and in some cases 

the coexistence of conflicting meanings within one policy document. When EU equality 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 54

legislation is examined from a broader historical perspective it becomes evident that over time 

dominant policy frames have absorbed equality concepts so that equality goals become 

secondary issues of concern and are used to legitimate a focus on employment targets and 

economic growth. While strategical framing can be a very powerful and useful strategy to help 

stimulate the adoption of new goals onto the EU policy agenda, it must be done carefully as it 

increases the risk of full co-optation of the initial meaning.  

I will begin by looking at policy frames and examine the policy-making process using a 

frame analysis. Given that there are numerous interpretations of any policy issue and various 

ideas of how issues should be prioritized, the policy creation process is a struggle over 

domination and subordination, which determines how issues will ultimately be given priority on 

the policy agenda. I will then examine how EU gender policy has developed within each of the 

three defined periods, with attention to women’s activism and organization and the impact this 

has had upon policy development, the extent to which strategical framing was employed, and 

gradual shifts in the meaning of equality concepts. This historical analysis reveals that, despite 

the extensive gender regime of the EU, equality legislation has faced numerous challenges which 

continue with current practices of GM. GM is a promising policy approach which has significant 

potential to be transformative of the dominant order, but faces inherent dangers of co-optation 

and so far has merely been integrated into dominant policy frames. In order for GM to retain 

coherence as an innovative policy which can achieve equality between women and men, it must 

retain the ability to challenge dominant norms. Strategical framing, while sometimes 

advantageous when used with other approaches to equality, is detrimental when employed within 

a strategy of mainstreaming as it reshapes GM within an integrationist approach instead of 

striving for its transformative potential. Strategical framing practices require a deeper analysis in 

order to understand how power functions between two competing policy frames. Further 

development of equality policy within the EU demands greater attention from both policy-

makers and feminists to ensure that equality legislation retains coherence and effectiveness at 

bringing us closer to a society free from the inequalities of gender.  

 

 

 

 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 55

Approaches to Gender Equality 

 

The effect of political discourses and policies upon individual citizens and relationships is 

mediated by gender. State policies constrain gender roles and shape notions about both the 

differences, and similarities, between men and women. Even policies that claim not to focus on 

gender have gendered consequences for men and women. The traditional policy frame of the EU 

was one of economic growth and gender concerns were generally disregarded in the design of 

state family and welfare policies; yet, such policies were founded upon the traditional division of 

labour and the male breadwinner family form, with a dependent wife and a working husband 

(Mazey 1998: 135). State policy is an important terrain within which to employ a gender critique 

as it has significant implications for how individuals organize their private lives.  

Feminists have not come to any general consensus on a theory of the state and debates 

within feminist literature continue to this day about where the problem of gender inequality lies 

and what the solution is. The vision of a society free from the inequalities of gender has been 

conceptualized in at least three different ways, all of which translate into different political 

strategies. Gender equality can be seen as ‘sameness,’ ‘difference,’ or the transformation of all 

established norms and standards related to gender and what it means. These have been 

articulated as the strategies of ‘inclusion,’ ‘reversal,’ and ‘displacement’ (Squires 2005: 367). 

Those pursuing a strategy of inclusion wish to extend dominant values to men and women 

equally, aspire to objectivity, conceive of people as autonomous and the state as neutral, and are 

often defined as liberal feminists. The strategy of reversal takes up a politics of difference, seeks 

recognition of a distinctive female identity, and views the state as patriarchal and thus has a key 

role in perpetuating gender inequalities; those pursuing this strategy are often labeled radical 

feminists. The strategy of displacement aims to move beyond gender by deconstructing those 

discursive regimes which actively engender the subject; this is most often defined as a 

postmodern perspective (Squires 2005: 368). These are conceptualized as an ‘equal treatment’ 

policy frame, a ‘woman’s perspective’ frame, and most recently a ‘gender’ policy frame, 

respectively. All three approaches to gender equality have been employed by the EU and can be 

situated within fairly distinct time periods of the EU’s history.   

The introduction of equal opportunities legislation as a concern for the EU stemmed from 

Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which referred explicitly to the right of women to equal 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 56

pay with men in the labour market. This Article has been the cornerstone for all subsequent EU 

social policy. Inclusion of Article 119 was precipitated by the French government, which had 

expressed concern that its highly paid female labour force would be undercut by lower wages 

from elsewhere (Duncan 2002: 306). It was intended to create fair and equal competition 

between member-states by preventing any one state from gaining a competitive advantage by 

paying women at lower wages. Thus, gender equality initially became an area of concern to the 

EU through a frame of competition and economic growth, rather than through one of equality 

and social justice. Thus, from its very inception within the Treaty of Rome, gender equality was 

tied to employment and labour market concerns. This constitutionally limited the social 

dimension of the EU to labour market creation, and subsequent social policy expansion was 

compelled to find its justification from within employment arguments (Young 2000: 84). In the 

early years of the European Economic Community (EEC), interest in equality between men and 

women coincided with second-wave feminism, and gradually Community institutions extended 

their purview to address some of the various aspects of women’s economic activity. 

Teresa Rees outlines three phases of the European Commission’s (EC) approach to gender 

equality over the last three decades: equal treatment in the 1970s, positive action in the 1980s, 

and GM in the 1990s. Equal Treatment measures are primarily concerned with the inclusion of 

women into already-existing structures and norms and is largely a “legal redress” to treat men 

and women the same. Positive action recognizes differences between men and women and 

maintains that specific actions are necessary in order to assist women in a overcoming their 

disadvantage in a patriarchal society.  GM involves the incorporation of gender issues into all 

policies and institutions. GM identifies how institutions and structures implicitly and perhaps 

unwittingly reinforce gender disadvantages and maintain male patriarchy. It then redesigns these 

structures and institutions appropriately in order to transform the policy process in a way that is 

not gendered (Squires 2005: 370). These three approaches are generally viewed to be 

complementary, cumulatively building upon each other and have emerged progressively within 

the EU over time. She labels these approaches ‘tinkering,’ ‘tailoring,’ and ‘transforming,’ in 

terms of their relationship to dominant norms (Rees 1998: 48). The development of EU gender 

policy has paralleled the development of feminism in its various strands (liberal, radical, and 

post-structural feminism). This is largely due to the fact that the EU is a relatively young 

institution and has allowed groups multiple points of access within EU political structures. 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 57

Various gender equality offices have been inserted into the European institutional machinery and 

have forged strong networks with independently organized women’s groups. This velvet triangle 

has been active within all periods of EU gender policy and has encouraged the placement of 

equality goals on the EU policy agenda but has still been met with resistance from policy actors. 

Conflicting policy frames have restricted the scope of equality goals, leading feminists to employ 

different strategies to further increase the likelihood of placing equality goals on the policy 

agenda.  

 

 

Policy Frames and Strategical Framing 

 

Carol Lee Bacchi has argued that inherent meaning does not pre-exist a policy issue or 

problem; rather, meaning is constituted within a broader context or frame of understanding 

(Bacchi 1999: 9). Rein and Schon define policy framing as “a way of selecting, organizing, 

interpreting and making sense of a complex reality in order to provide guideposts for knowing, 

analyzing and acting” (Rein and Schon 1991: 263). In other words, a policy frame provides a 

perspective from which an issue can be interpreted in order to determine how to respond or 

interact, which originates in underlying structures of belief. State policies are grounded within a 

particular policy frame.  For instance, gender inequality in politics can be depicted as “women 

trailing behind men,” in which case the solution would target women’s behaviour, or it can be 

depicted as “men dominating positions of authority and excluding women,” in which case the 

solution would target the issue of men’s domination. The language or discourse of the policy-

making process is important in defining and representing the policy issue at hand. Carol Lee 

Bacchi argues that every policy proposal contains an implicit or explicit diagnosis of what the 

‘problem’ is, which she calls “problem representation” (Bacchi 1999: 1). The problem 

representation of a policy proposal defines the problem and creates the solution, impacting both 

the subject and the object of the resultant policy.  

Frame analysis is concerned with identifying dominant and subordinate policy 

representations with a focus on language and discourse, as well as identification of the processes 

by which meanings are constructed in specific contexts (Peterson 2007: 266). Frame analysis 

starts with the assumption of numerous interpretations in the creation of policy and examines 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 58

issues of dominance and subordination as they are made manifest. This creates space for a 

discussion of normative goals and increases awareness of the role that ideology plays in the 

creation of policy. The process of creating policy is a territory of struggle to determine which 

actor(s) will be involved in shaping the issues to be considered and to determine how they will 

be constructed or represented. This process is a conflict over competing policy frames and entails 

struggles over power. Resources allocated to each frame are likely to be unequal, making it more 

difficult for the subordinate frame to displace, or question, the dominant frame. Nancy Fraser 

notes that under conditions of inequality, deliberative processes are inclined to serve dominant 

processes and they fail to provide subordinated groups with an opportunity to articulate their 

voice or concerns (Fraser 1997: 81). In other words, subordinate frames are likely to be simply 

absorbed into the existing dominant frame. Maria Stratigaki has referred to this as the process of 

co-optation, which occurs when “the concept itself is not rejected, but its initial meaning is 

transformed and used in the policy discourse for a different purpose than the original one” 

(Stratigaki 2004: 36). 

Strategical framing practices, which attempt to construct a “fit” or “resonance” between 

different frames to increase their chance of being incorporated into the policy agenda, increases 

the likelihood of co-optation of a concept’s meaning. Strategical framing is based on the 

understanding that an inequality of power resources backing various frames impacts the 

likelihood of success. A dominant frame is more likely to incorporate another frame which is 

compatible, rather than in contradiction and conflict with it (Snow and Benford 1992: 137). This 

effectively provides a link between the two frames by stretching the meaning of the goal in order 

to secure the allegiance of those acting from within the dominant frame (Verloo 2005: 359). 

Feminists have often employed this strategy in order to facilitate the adoption of equality issues 

into the policy agenda. While this is certainly more effective in securing initial acceptance, there 

is an inherent danger in the strategy. The shape of ensuing power struggles are altered so that 

when the feminist goal is stretched, it is conceptualized as weaker than its original manifestation, 

and ultimately further potency is accorded to the dominant frame. This increases the likelihood 

for co-optation of the equality concept’s original meaning as the dominant frame subsists and 

prevails, unchallenged in its various forms of inequality. Strategical framing of an equality goal 

can therefore be seen as a mix of enabling and constraining forces (Verloo 2005: 345). It 

provides an initial introduction onto the policy agenda which comes with additional mechanisms 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 59

and increased opportunities to institute real change, but then the reshaping of equality goals to fit 

with the dominant frame results in a mere continuation of current understandings and practices. 

This has worked against the mobilization of feminists, as it has become more difficult to oppose 

new meanings of concepts which they originally championed (Stratigaki 2004: 36). While 

strategical framing was employed during each of the three periods identified in the EU’s 

development of gender policy, it has been particularly within the most recent period of GM that 

it has been most detrimental to equality aims. The transformative potential of GM lies in its 

ability to challenge dominant norms and gendered processes; strategical framing practices 

weaken the conceptualization of GM and detract from its ability to address and redress gendered 

systems and processes. This weakens the transformative potential of GM and instead reshapes it 

into an integrationist approach, incorporating gender issues into existing policy frames rather 

than rethinking their fundamental aims. An analysis of all three periods of the EU’s approach to 

gender equality further reveals representations of equality as understood through various policy 

frames, the strengths and limitations of strategical framing, and the extent to which there were 

shifts in the meaning of equality concepts.  

 

 

Equal Treatment Policies 

 

Liberal feminists view the role of the state, as it ought to be, as a neutral arbiter between 

conflicting interests and the guarantor of individual rights as promised by citizenship (Connell 

1994: 141). They argue that the neutral state has been “captured” by men, and that redress is 

necessary in order to recover gender equality. Liberal feminists characterize the problem as men 

in command of governments, business, the military, and other institutions; as such, the solution is 

characterized as greater access for women to positions of authority in order to restore a more 

suitable balance (Connell 1994: 142). Liberal feminism emerged as a parallel discourse to 

European integration in the 1960s and 1970s, and both were critical in the adoption of EC 

measures ensuring women’s equality in the labour market. The equality frame during this period 

can be identified as an ‘equal treatment’ policy frame. 

The activities of liberal feminism during the late 1960s and early 1970s were catalytic to 

the increased attention to equality issues between women and men in the labour market. Feminist 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 60

ideas and demands were a significant challenge to long-standing and traditional notions 

regarding the status of women. European feminists sought to reframe government policy which 

had significance for women, arguing that most importantly, there was a critical need to address 

discrimination in the labour market. Wage differentials between women and men were common 

throughout Europe, and equal pay for equal work became a central demand of women’s protests. 

However, most national governments remained unreceptive to women’s demands. When they 

were met with little response by national governments, feminists strategically turned to the EEC 

as a focus for their lobbying activities (Mazey 1998: 137). They invoked Article 119 in national 

equal pay campaigns, and it was Belgian women who were successful in placing the new gender 

equality policy frame on the European agenda – an equal pay strike in a munitions factory 

resulted in an increase to the wages of all female workers and garnered widespread publicity 

throughout Europe. Belgian lawyer Eliane Vogel-Polsky argued for a strong definition of Article 

119 in the Defrenne case1 in front of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This decision 

confirmed the direct applicability of Article 119 and extended it further, applying it to contracts 

between individuals and collective agreements (Hoskyns 1996: 93). While article 119 provided 

feminist groups with an entry point to support their demands for stronger gender equality 

legislation, other factors also made the EU more receptive to feminist demands. The EU was 

relatively unconstrained by pre-existing policies and a deeply entrenched policy frame given that 

it was a new political system, allowing easier adoption of the ‘equal treatment’ policy frame 

offered by women’s groups. Women were strategic in targeting multiple access points to the 

policy process, and the EU was searching for new ways to extend its mandate in order to respond 

to recession and stagflation. Consequently, it cultivated strong connections with women’s groups 

in order to legitimate its intervention in social policy areas. These connections were instrumental 

in placing gender equality on the European policy agenda in accordance with an ‘equal 

treatment’ perspective (Mazey 1998: 138). Feminist mobilization was met with relative 

receptiveness of the EU in light of the fact that extending gender policy would also extend EU 

jurisdiction.  

                                                 
1 An air hostess had been forced to retire at age 40 from Belgian state airline Sabena, following 
company policy. She suffered loss of pay and pension entitlements, and had to search for work at a 
vulnerable age; this was further aggravated by company policy which gave any member of the air 
crew high pension entitlements which came close to full salary, except for air hostesses who received 
very little (Hoskyns 1996: 70). 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 61

The introduction of a 1974 Council Resolution concerning a Social Action Program (SAP) 

authorized the EU to become involved with social issues and initiated a more active social policy 

engagement. The SAP included a section on equality between men and women in the labour 

market with the main emphasis being on increasing employment rates. Various women’s groups 

were inserted into the EU political machinery, including the Women’s Bureau, the European 

Women’s Lobby (EWL), and the Women’s Committee of the European Confederation of Trade 

Unions. These groups increased attention to equality issues and had considerable impact in the 

implementation of several equality measures. These measures addressed various aspects of equal 

treatment in the labour market. The 1975 Equal Pay Directive reaffirmed the principle of equal 

pay between men and women for work of equal value, the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive 

provided for equal treatment as regards access to employment, and the 1978 Directive concerned 

equal treatment in social security benefits. These were followed by a Directive in 1986 on equal 

treatment in occupational social security schemes, and another 1986 Directive on equal treatment 

in self-employment. Vocational training and employment schemes offered by the European 

Social Fund (ESF) aimed to promote equal opportunities for women in the labour market and in 

1988, “equal opportunities between men and women” was adopted as a specific measure under 

Objective 3 of EU Structural policy (Stratigaki 2005: 170). The emphasis of these measures was 

on increasing women’s access to the labour market rather than on a redistribution of 

opportunities, reflecting an ‘equal treatment’ policy frame which emanated from liberal 

feminists. 

While feminists understood gender equality as equal treatment, there was an increasing 

sense that positive action was also necessary in order to achieve true gender equality. Jacqueline 

Nonon, an official in the Directorate General Employment and Social Affairs (DG V), had been 

given responsibility for preparing the equality Directives and she initiated an ad hoc working 

group on women’s issues. The group believed that women needed equal treatment as well as 

positive action measures to achieve true gender equality; however, it was deemed more likely 

that the wider Community would adopt Directives focused on equality within the labour market. 

Indeed, the EC stated that it was concerned only with family policy insofar as it directly affected 

women’s employment in the labour market (Hoskyns 1996: 102). As such, strategical framing 

was employed in order to create a “fit” with the economic frame of the EC, and the resultant 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 62

Directives reflected this, addressing equality concerns of feminist groups (limiting the scope to 

an ‘equal treatment’ perspective) as well as economic concerns of the wider Community.  

There were gradual shifts in the meaning of the equal treatment Directives and the ways 

they were implemented in various member states. Equal treatment Directives were used by 

various national governments to reduce social expenditures and encourage participation in the 

labour market, rather than being used to pursue positive integration through institutionalizing 

protective legislation for all employees in the labour market (Young 2000: 86). Legislation on 

supplementary benefits was revised to incorporate gender-neutral language, but effectively 

excluded access to many women who had domestic care giving responsibilities (Duncan 1996: 

403). This illustrates some of the difficulties inherent in EU-level legislation – a multitude of 

political actors and arenas increases the likelihood that equality goals will be sidelined in the 

process of implementation. While they faced numerous difficulties upon implementation, 

application of these equality Directives was still undoubtedly of benefit to women in providing 

them with a legal redress for discrimination in the labour market. These “hard law” Directives 

are judicially enforceable and remain at the heart of EU interventions on gender inequality 

(Walby 2004: 7). Feminists were required to use strategical framing only to a moderate degree, 

as feminist ideas were resonant with the EU’s dominant economic policy frame. An ‘equal 

treatment’ frame encouraged a focus on employment targets, and this focus continued within the 

EU’s shift towards positive action measures and work/life reconciliation policies. 

 

 

Work/Family Reconciliation Policies 

 

In comparison with liberal feminists who understand the state in terms of its political 

institutions, radical feminists extend their analysis to the broader structures of state and society. 

Radical feminism is not easy to define because it takes many forms. For the purposes of this 

paper, a rough sketch is sufficient although this is by no means a comprehensive account. 

Radical feminism is predicated on an understanding of intrinsic connections between the family, 

the labour market, and the state; inequalities reproduced in one sphere will be propagated within 

all three spheres. The state is viewed as “male” in that the social order is constituted in the 

interest of men and thereby reproduces gender inequalities, not only through legislation but also 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 63

through social norms and regulation of the family structure (Mackinnon 1989: 162). The state’s 

role in the oppression of women is often seen to be indirect – it regulates ‘systems’ such as the 

family and the labour market which reproduce inequalities of gender and are oppressive to 

women (Connell 1994: 144). The cultural distinction between public (masculine) and private 

(feminine) is problematized; the proposed solution, however, is not as evident. Some perceive 

this to be the end of the state itself given that it is predicated upon this distinction. Others argue 

in favour of state expansion, so that the state would effectively become broader and thinner and 

reshaped in the image of radical democratization of social interaction instead of favouring male 

privilege (Connell 1994: 165). Still others argue that the category “woman” has not been 

misdefined so much as it has been undervalued; they argue for a concept of equality that values 

caring responsibilities (Cain 1989: 836). From all accounts, the goal is to recreate reality from a 

woman-centred perspective. Whereas liberal feminists assume similarities between women and 

men, radical feminists tend to build their arguments around inherent differences between men 

and women, arguing that equal treatment is capable of only treating the symptoms of gender 

inequality but not the root causes; as such, politics must be reconstructed in order to recognize 

the distinctive perspective of non-hegemonic gender identities (Verloo 2005: 346). Given that 

radical feminists see patriarchy as embedded in state procedure, change must originate outside of 

the state in civil society, as actions within the state system will instinctively reinforce the 

patriarchal structure (Kantola 2006: 6).  

The concept of the “double day” of paid and unpaid work suffered by women first 

appeared within feminist writing in the early 1970s as the number of women entering the labour 

market dramatically increased. This became an issue of concern for feminists as the need for 

non-parental child care strategies was compounded by increased participation in the labour 

market by women. Women’s disproportionate share of care and domestic responsibilities came 

to be recognized as a direct cause of perpetuating gender inequalities in the family, as well as 

within the market and the state. As such, the pursuit of a gender equal society demanded a 

recognition for women’s caregiving work as well as a redistribution of caring responsibilities to 

alleviate the double burden carried by women (Hoskyns 1996: 199). The concept of ‘work and 

family reconciliation’ was developed by feminists in order to highlight the connection between 

gender inequalities in the labour market and the home, and they demanded reconciliation policies 

which would provide caregiving services to allow women to move freely within the family and 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 64

the labour market. Feminists lobbied for a need to reconceptualize care work to achieve an equal 

division of labour in the family, as well as the need for state policies to support unpaid care 

responsibilities. This discourse was embraced by the EU, and soon came to characterize the 

majority of EU equality policies during the 1980s and early 1990s. These policies were based on 

the feminist understanding that state provision of two types of care services can help alleviate 

these gender inequalities: first, non-parental childcare services help to alleviate women’s care 

giving responsibilities and can facilitate participation in the labour market; second, parental leave 

policies allow a temporary absence from work, and can alternatively alleviate women’s 

responsibilities in the workforce and encourage a return to the domestic sphere. The provision of 

one type of program or the other would not increase women’s choices, nor would it challenge 

assumptions about women’s work, but would simply shift their burden of responsibility from one 

sphere to another. It is the combination of these two supports that can assist women and men to 

balance their responsibilities in the labour market and the domestic sphere, and contribute to the 

pursuit of gender equality.2 Women have fought for a reconceptualization of their identity as 

caregivers and for a more egalitarian division of labour, as well as for targeted services; the 

equality frame during this period can be identified as a ‘woman’s perspective’ frame.  

Feminism of this brand influenced the EU’s understanding of gender equality but it was in 

particular the equality machinery of the EU which facilitated a shift in the EU’s approach to 

gender equality in the 1980s, from a strategy of inclusion to a strategy of reversal. A European 

feminist network had begun to emerge by the 1980s and as women began to work at the EC and 

European Parliament (EP), the EU increasingly adopted positive action measures and 

reconciliation discourse. The 1974 SAP was the first European document to allude to childcare 

as a means to enable mothers to reconcile family responsibilities with working life, marking the 

EU’s entry into the realm of childcare policies. Subsequently, many European texts focused on 

the connection between childcare and gender equality. The 1989 Community Charter of the 

Fundamental Social Rights of Workers contained equality of treatment provisions, not simply in 

paid employment but also in education, social protection, and in reconciling work and family 
                                                 
2 However, there is disagreement within the feminist discipline surrounding reconciliation discourse, 
as it is associated with the meaning of motherhood. For some feminists, the family was seen as an 
oppressive institution and insofar as motherhood was the means in which women were subordinated, 
it was also rejected (Randall 1996: 497). One of the consequences of this rejection of motherhood 
was a reluctance to engage with the issue of childcare for fear of perpetuating patriarchy through 
association. There was also disagreement as to the real value of paid work.  



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 65

obligations. It included a chapter devoted to equal treatment for men and women as a social 

objective (Commission of the European Communities 1990a: 17). A series of Action 

Programmes focused on the need to develop public services such as childcare and established 

pilot projects and networks of experts and women’s rights advocates (Pollack and Hafner-Burton 

2000: 433). Jacques Delors, EC President from 1985 – 1995, was an instrumental player in 

facilitating Europe’s expanding role in social citizenship. The Delors Commission sought to 

mobilize political support for new EC initiatives in a variety of areas from interest groups and 

social movements and, in an effort to achieve this, created bodies of experts to establish strong 

connections with these communities (Ross 2001: 197).  

The European Commission Childcare Network was established in 1986 by the Women’s 

Bureau to develop childcare policy. The Childcare Network was given a broad mandate and left 

relatively unconstrained by the Delors Commission to promote a feminist agenda (Ross 2001: 

197). Peter Moss, coordinator from 1986 – 1996, understood childcare issues as an essential 

component to addressing unequal gender roles in the domestic sphere and adopted a ‘woman’s 

perspective’ policy frame. If male and female relationships were equal in the home, then shifts in 

labour market relationships would subsequently follow (Ross 2001: 187). The Childcare 

Network became a significant actor in disseminating information about gender equality to 

member states and conducting advocacy work alongside feminists and was supported by the 

Equal Opportunities Unit. During the span of its existence (1986 – 1996), it produced 31 reports, 

created an extensive database of information and stimulated the informal policy process (Randall 

2000: 355). In 1990, the Childcare Network explicitly articulated the need for greater 

involvement of men in the care of children:  

Childcare is a “men’s issue” as much as a “women’s issue.” No formula can be 
applied uniformly in all families–how responsibilities are shared may vary between 
families and, within the same family, may vary over time with one parent doing more 
at one stage and less at another. Having acknowledged this, there is still plenty of 
scope, and an urgent need, for greater involvement by men in childcare (particularly 
in families but also as workers in services) and for policies to encourage and support 
this process. (European Commission Childcare Network, 1990, p. 3)  
 

The advocacy work of the Childcare Network was critical to the eventual adoption of the 

Recommendation on Childcare in 1992. The Childcare Network had fought for the introduction 

of binding measures on childcare through the adoption of a framework Directive; while it was 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 66

successful in propelling this onto the EC policy agenda, it was then presented to the Council of 

Ministers as a Recommendation rather than a Directive. A Directive on this issue, which had 

significant costs to the state and risked being perceived as an encroachment into the realm of the 

family, was not likely to pass and so the decision was made to instead pursue a non-binding, 

“soft law” Recommendation (Hoskyns 1996: 156). The EC employed strategical framing and 

presented the proposal for a Recommendation as a means to achieve both gender equality 

between men and women and economic growth (Bleijenbergh et al. 2006: 323). The Council of 

Ministers then shifted the justification of the Recommendation away from substantive equality 

for women to arguments for economic growth and a more traditional understanding of formal 

equality in the labour market (Bleijenbergh et al. 2006: 324). This made the document acceptable 

to all member states, including the UK. While there had been concern that Britain would exercise 

its veto right and block the Recommendation, Prime Minister Tony Blair supported childcare 

services from an economic frame in order to encourage employment growth (Bleijenbergh et al. 

2006: 327). Thus, the Recommendation on Childcare was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 

1992. 

The final text of the Recommendation embraced a broad definition of childcare and 

identified four key areas where state measures were needed: childcare services, parental leave for 

employed parents, family-friendly policies at the workplace, and measures to promote the 

increased participation by men in caring responsibilities (Lewis 2006: 428). Significantly, this 

was the first Commission document to target male behaviour (Hoskyns 1996: 157). The 

Recommendation illustrated multiple understandings of reconciliation throughout the document 

and employed several policy frames. A ‘woman’s perspective’ frame was employed to argue for 

an equal division of labour within the family and arguments about children’s well-being were 

also taken up, but the majority of the Recommendation viewed provision of childcare services as 

advantageous to the pursuit of other policy goals, such as increasing mobility of the European 

labour market and economic growth (Council of European Communities 1992: 1). The 

Recommendation’s conflicting use of reconciliation language highlights the various actors 

involved in its creation: the Childcare Network had established reconciliation as meaning “the 

renegotiation of gender roles beyond the labour market and within the family,” but the 

Commission was tied to more standard arguments as it was mandated to legitimate its actions 

through Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. The constraints of the Commission and the latitude 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 67

of the Childcare Network, in addition to the effects of strategical framing practices, had led to a 

combination of policy frames throughout the document (Ross 2001: 194). The Recommendation 

was significant as it was the first time that European social policy had extended beyond paid 

employment into the realm of unpaid as well as paid care (Bleijenbergh et al. 2006: 316). 

Nevertheless, its impact was limited among member states as its soft law status prevented 

judicial enforcement and many member states already had childcare arrangements established 

(Bleijenbergh and Roggeband 2007: 451).  

After the Delors’ presidency came to an end in 1995, there was a backlash across Europe in 

reaction to the activism of the Commission and member states became more protective over what 

they saw as incursions into state sovereignty. The Childcare Network was dissolved in 1996 and 

no equivalent organization was established in its place. Subsequent Commission activity was 

more conservative and restrained, and it shifted away from a regulatory function to one more 

concerned with coordination and monitoring (Ross 2001: 206). The Santer Commission, which 

followed the presidency of Jacques Delors, focused almost exclusively on mass unemployment, 

low growth, and the creation of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in order to restore 

economic competitiveness to European countries. In 1995 the budget of the Equal Opportunities 

Unit was cut in half, followed closely by the removal of the director of the Unit, Agnès Hubert. 

While nine gender expert groups in various policy areas had been struck under the Third Action 

Programme, seven of them were dismantled and discontinued (Stratigaki 2005: 173). This was 

done against the backdrop of the Single European Act and the unanimous decision by member 

state governments to improve competitiveness and complete market liberalization (Hoskyns 

1996: 141). These decisions signaled a fundamental change in emphasis of the EU, establishing 

market liberalization and deregulation as the new orthodoxy of the EU. Childcare continued to 

be an area of interest to the Commission, but subsequent commitments were more explicit in 

their understanding of childcare through an economic frame. 

While the First and Second Medium-Term Community Action Programmes used a 

‘woman’s perspective’ frame to interpret reconciliation, the meaning of the term began to shift in 

the Third Community Action Programme (1991-1995). Reconciliation policies were delineated 

as a way to “reduce barriers to women’s access to and participation in employment” 

(Commission of the European Communities 1990: 4). The new Community Initiative NOW 

(New Opportunities for Women) was introduced under this Programme as a means to encourage 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 68

women’s participation in the labour market, stating that insufficient childcare services 

constituted a barrier to women’s integration into the labour market. This reflected the EU’s 

economic, and specifically employment, concerns. Although the Third and Fourth Medium-Term 

Community Action Programmes were framed as involving both men and women as opposed to 

targeting women only (as in the First and Second Community Action Programmes), the measures 

emerging from these Programmes addressed women exclusively (Stratigaki 2004: 43). The 

understanding was that it was women who would do the reconciling, which represented a shift 

away from understanding gender equality as a rebalancing of roles in the family sphere, and back 

towards a strategy of inclusion in the labour market.  

Parental leave programs are perceived to be a crucial component of state services by 

feminists espousing a strategy of reversal and a ‘woman’s perspective,’ as it is the combination 

of parental leave and childcare services which will provide women with greater flexibility and 

freedom in shaping their lives. Parental leave enjoyed only a brief presence on the EC agenda, 

appearing at a time when fertility rates were declining in many European states and populations 

were aging. This raised concerns about a diminishing labour supply in years to come, prompting 

the EC to focus on policies which would encourage a greater reproduction of labour in order to 

sustain the economy (Duncan 2002: 310). A 1994 White Paper proposed a series of measures 

that would reduce the risks of economic convergence for member states. One of these was 

parental leave, and the White Paper connected it to working flexibility and the reconciliation of 

family and work life, as well as the “individualization of taxation and social security systems” 

(European Commission 1994b: 150). A Directive on Parental Leave was adopted in 1996, more 

than a decade after it had first been proposed (and eventually dropped because it was considered 

too prescriptive in its intention to change men’s behaviour through non-transferable 

entitlements). The Commission’s DG V introduced the Directive through reconciliation 

discourse and employed strategical framing to justify its existence through arguments for gender 

equality as well as economic growth. It was argued that a changing job market required more 

female workers; measures assisting workers to reconcile their working life with their family life 

would allow women to become more active in the labour market (Ross 2001: 200).  

The final text of the Parental Leave Directive employed various policy frames throughout 

the document. First, a ‘woman’s perspective’ frame was used: parental leave was recognized as 

an individual and non-transferable right for both women and men. There was also a provision for 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 69

emergency leave in the event of family illness or a medical accident. There were indications of 

an economic frame as the majority of details, including pay and social security matters, were left 

to be negotiated by each member state. No minimum remuneration requirements were specified, 

which suggested that men were much less likely to take it (as concluded by Bruning and Platenga 

in their 1999 study of eight European countries). Parental leave entitlement was only to be 

granted once a worker completed a certain period of work, and allowed employers to postpone 

the parental leave for “justifiable reasons related to the operation of the undertaking” (Council of 

the European Communities 1996: 5). The text of the Directive suggests that there was a greater 

concern with increasing flexibility in the market place than with gender equality. By the time the 

Directive was implemented, its stipulations were so minimal that it marked an improvement for 

only a few member states: Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland (the UK had opted out of the 

Agreement on Social Policy and so was not obliged to abide by these stipulations). The 1997 

Treaty of Amsterdam also included provisions pertaining to parental leave, specifying that all 

member states must offer three months of unpaid leave to both men and women through a non-

transferable credit until the child’s eighth birthday. However, attention to parental leave was 

short-lived and the Commission quickly resumed its primary focus on the provision of childcare 

programs, which were of greater benefit within an economic frame.  

Despite the colder political climate in the later years of the 1990s, the EWL mounted an 

effective campaign to have broader equality measures included in the Amsterdam Treaty. The 

EWL adopted a strategy premised on the understanding that they would need to provide a 

perspective of expertise in order to gain legitimacy, and they set up meetings with member states 

to explain the significance of the Treaty, as well to garner support for extending gender equality 

provisions within it. The EWL positioned itself as an ally of the Commission by arguing on 

behalf of the EC that the Treaty was worth adopting in its own right; it was subsequently granted 

the opportunity to comment on treaty drafts and articulate its demands in position papers 

(Helfferich and Kolb 2001: 151). It helped to disseminate a ‘gender’ policy frame and influenced 

the adoption of GM measures. Pressure from Sweden, Finland and Denmark also had an impact 

upon the equality provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty and to the adoption of GM as a formal 

strategy of the EC. Upon joining the EU in 1994, the governments of Sweden and Finland were 

under considerable pressure to prove to their constituencies that the EU was women-friendly, as 

a series of referenda before accession had revealed that women in these countries were doubtful 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 70

of the EU’s receptiveness of gender equality. Swedish women had voted against joining the EU, 

female constituents in Denmark voted against the Maastricht Treaty because of its limited 

consideration of gender equality, and only by a slight majority had women in Finland voted in 

favour of joining (Duncan 2002: 309). The final Amsterdam Treaty included Article 13, which 

allowed the EU to challenge discrimination practices, and Article 141 which extended Article 

119 from the Treaty of Rome, stipulating that women and men should receive equal pay for work 

of equal value (Zippel 2004: 77). The most far-reaching provisions of the Treaty were Articles 2 

and 3, which made gender equality between women and men a central objective of all EU 

activities. 

The meaning of reconciliation continued to shift towards a more purely economic policy 

frame. Reconciliation was identified as an integral part of the European Employment Strategy 

(EES) process in order to promote female labour market participation (Lewis 2006: 429). 

Childcare had regularly been identified as a factor in strengthening the Equal Opportunities Pillar 

in the National Action Plans on employment since 1998. The 2000 Lisbon Summit suggested 

setting national targets with respect to childcare based on best practice which were accompanied 

by commitments to full employment and specific targets to increase women’s employment. This 

effectively narrowed the rationale for providing childcare services to reaching employment 

targets and limited the understanding of childcare to formal provision rather than parental leave 

(Lewis 2006: 430). This was followed by the Barcelona European Council in 2002 which agreed 

on targets for the provision of non-parental childcare facilities in order to facilitate higher 

employment rates for both women and men. During this period, there were few indications of 

concern with gender equality as a goal, as the ‘woman’s perspective’ frame slipped off the policy 

agenda and childcare came to be seen as a means to achieve full employment rates within an 

economic frame.  

A further indication of the gradual shifts in meaning of equality concepts was the fact that 

reconciliation discourse began to be employed outside of gender equality and social policy 

documents. The 1994 White Paper “Growth, Competitiveness, Employment” referred to the need 

for increased flexibility in the labour market, to which parental leave could positively contribute, 

and referred to reconciliation of work and family life in order to reduce indirect labour costs 

(European Commission 1994a: 150). Reconciliation became increasingly detached from equality 

discourse and instead was tied to new commitments of flexibility and security in the workplace; 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 71

in other cases it was used to address falling birth rates. During the latter half of the 1990s, 

reconciliation began to be seen as the ultimate compromise able to simultaneously address 

demographic concerns, economic concerns, and gender equality, and it came to be included in all 

major EU policies related to organization of work or employment (Stratigaki 2004: 46). For 

instance, the 1996 Green Paper “Living and Working in the Information Society: People First” 

discussed the use of technology in improving the balance between work and family life 

(European Commission 1996: 25). The meaning of reconciliation had shifted dramatically since 

its inception into EU discourse, from a concept able to highlight the significance of care 

programs in the pursuit of gender equality, to one which legitimated economic aims.  Ultimately, 

gender equality goals had been co-opted and subsumed into an economic frame.  

In this phase of EU policy formulation, many of the initiatives on gender equality were 

catalyzed by lobbying activities of the feminist movement, spearheaded by institutions of the 

equality machinery of the EU. The Childcare Network was instrumental in disseminating 

knowledge about the need for childcare services in pursuit of gender equality between women 

and men, and portions of the final text of the Recommendation reflected this policy frame. The 

Parental Leave Directive was introduced by the DG V through a ‘woman’s perspective’ frame, 

and the EWL spearheaded a large lobbying campaign in order to incorporate stronger equality 

legislation within the Treaty of Amsterdam. Strategical framing was employed by each of these 

actors to varying degrees, in an attempt to increase the likelihood of adoption into the EU’s 

policy agenda. The final texts illustrated shifts in meaning away from the initial ‘woman’s 

perspective’ policy frame. Over time, EU commitments to gender equality articulated through 

reconciliation discourse became increasingly weaker, and equality activity was recast within a 

broader economic frame which coincided with a liberal understanding of gender equality – 

‘equal treatment’ in the labour market.  

Despite this preoccupation with economic priorities, gender equality became even more 

entrenched within the EU. In 1996, the Commission issued a Communication which committed 

to examining all EU policies with a gendered lens. This marked the formal introduction of GM 

into EU politics, which has since become the major focus of EU gender equality efforts. 

 

 

  



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 72

Gender Mainstreaming 

 

The third and most recent phase of the EC’s approach to gender equality has been Gender 

Mainstreaming (GM). GM is grounded in a strategy of displacement and poststructuralist 

feminism. Poststructural feminists view the state as a discursive process rather than merely as 

institutions; the state is not seen to be inherently patriarchal in nature but was historically 

constructed as patriarchal. The state, therefore, is at the centre of a reverberating set of power 

relations and political processes which both construct and contest patriarchy (Kantola 2006: 12). 

Poststructural feminists see the state as a terrain of struggle which can be both a positive and a 

negative resource but they focus on displacing patriarchal relations and deconstructing those 

discursive regimes which ascribe gender roles. Such discursive processes are conceptualized as 

the location of both the problem and the solution of gender inequality (Kantola 2006: 13). GM 

claims to address and redress gendered systems; as such, it has attracted a great deal of attention 

from academics as it contends that it can lead to a world beyond gender.  

The incorporation of GM into the EU equality agenda in 1996 resulted in a much broader 

purview for equality policies. Mainstreaming builds upon previous understandings of gender 

equality and inequality. GM has been called a “three-legged equality stool” in that it is must 

work with both ‘legs’ of equal treatment and positive action measures in order to be successful 

(Booth and Bennett 2002: 434). It focuses on issues of gender rather than on women, widening 

its view of what contributes to gender inequality. Gender issues are relevant within all policy 

areas and GM brings this to the fore, expanding responsibility for who, and what, contributes to 

inequality. GM demands the redefinition of policy goals to incorporate the promotion of gender 

equality as an overarching policy objective, and calls for the re-examination and reformation of 

the policy process to incorporate a gendered perspective. It refers to both a strategy to achieve 

equality as well as a process, and prescribes a specific set of tools and methods with which to 

implement the strategy (Booth and Bennett 2002: 442). The equality frame during this period can 

be identified as a ‘gender’ frame. 

While GM is widely perceived to be a new strategy of gender equality, it is worth noting 

that the three strategies of inclusion, reversal, and displacement can be constituted within 

mainstreaming practices themselves (Squires 2005: 370). Mainstreaming can be understood to 

mean different things, and the ways in which mainstreaming practices are applied impact 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 73

whether it fits within a strategy of inclusion or achieves its transformative potential. Strategies of 

inclusion, or integrationist approaches, address gender issues from within existing policy 

paradigms, whereas strategies of reversal imply the transformation of policy structures through 

increasing women’s participation as decision-makers (Jahan 1996: 829). It is widely accepted 

that mainstreaming must employ a transformative approach in order to adequately address 

fundamental issues of gender inequality, as both a strategy of inclusion and reversal fail to 

challenge dominant gendered norms (Beveridge and Nott 2002: 300).  

In February 1996, the Commission officially adopted GM as a strategy. GM was defined 

as:  

Mobilizing all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of 
achieving equality by actively and openly taking into account at the planning stage 
their possible effects on the respective situations of women and men (gender 
perspective). (emphasis in the original)   

        (Commission of the European Communities 1996a: 2). 
 

The Communication stressed the importance of using a gendered lens to examine various policy 

areas, but failed to provide any overarching goal or objective, an expectation of outcomes or 

timeline, or a strategy for the implementation of GM. It made no reference to the connection 

between GM and women’s participation in decision-making, nor did it suggest how to allocate 

human resources or funds in the implementation of GM (Stratigaki 2005: 175). It was drafted by 

two male officials, neither of whom had any prior experience dealing with gender equality. They 

had rejected requests from the Equal Opportunities Unit to provide input, stating that this would 

adopt a “woman’s ghetto” approach and was therefore not appropriate for GM, which could be 

designed by anybody (Stratigaki 2005: 175). Arguably, this contributed to a confusing definition 

of GM.  

The first progress report on the follow-up to the Communication was adopted in 1998, this 

time with greater input from the Equal Opportunities Unit and other women. The progress report 

included a new definition of GM which was much more comprehensive:  

The systematic integration of the respective situations, priorities and needs of women 
and men in all policies and with a view to promoting equality between women and 
men and mobilizing all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of 
achieving equality by actively and openly taking into account, at the planning stage, 
their effects on the respective situation of women and men in implementation, 
monitoring and evaluation. (Commission of the European Communities 1998: 2).  

 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 74

This report outlined the need for a “dual strategy” approach (combining GM with positive 

action measures). Such a strategy was officially launched within the EC and it was particularly due 

to the individual efforts of female commissioners that it was effectively implemented using a 

‘gender’ policy frame. A strategy and action plan on ‘Women in Science’, the DAPHNE initiative 

combating violence against women, and the incorporation of a GM strategy into the EU Structural 

Funds policy all employed a dual track strategy effectively (Stratigaki 2005: 179). The influence of 

individual female politicians was further felt when Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou and 

Barbara Helfferich, a member of her cabinet, were successful in their fight to continue the mid-term 

action programmes, which had been threatened to be terminated due to arguments that GM 

precluded the need for other positive action measures. The Framework Strategy for Gender Equality 

(2001-2005) was adopted and the action programmes continued, marking an unmistakable success 

for gender equality issues. While these women were unable to transform dominant norms across the 

EU, their experience illustrated that with political will, a ‘gender’ frame could be promoted within 

the EU political agenda.  

A “dual strategy” approach is essential, as GM could otherwise be used as a justification for 

diluting gender expertise and eliminating specific positive action approaches altogether. Maria 

Stratigaki notes that the annual Commission report, “Employment in Europe” contained a chapter 

on women’s employment from 1989 until 1993, and in 1994 it examined all chapters through a 

gendered lens; by 1995, both these approaches had been terminated, stating that the use of GM in 

the drafting of the policy meant that these measures were no longer necessary (Stratigaki 2005: 

176). In the field of education, budget allocations for equality projects were discontinued with the 

argument that GM had already been employed. The NOW Community Initiative, an important 

source of financing and support for women in vocational training and enterprise creation, lost its 

funding as the issue was mainstreamed within employment policy (Woodward 2008: 76). Within 

these areas, a ‘gender’ frame did not resonate with the dominant frame and was therefore rejected. 

While the Fourth Medium-Term Community Action Programme for Equal Opportunities Between 

Women and Men featured mainstreaming as its most central element, this altered the shape of the 

projects which received funding under this programme, and small enterprises initiated by women’s 

organizations were set aside as larger-scale projects proposed by organizations such as the social 

partners received funding instead. These were significant losses for feminists and for gender 

equality issues.  



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 75

Equality goals continued to face difficulties under GM as it had under previous EU policy 

approaches, and so feminists used strategical framing practices in order to create a resonance 

between equality goals and other policy priorities. While strategical framing contains inherent 

dangers when employed with any policy goal, it is particularly dangerous when used to justify 

GM. In order to be an effective strategy, GM needs to retain its ability to challenge gendered 

policy goals and processes. Strategical framing of GM increases the likelihood that it will turn 

into an integrationist approach, subsuming gender into existing policy frames rather than 

rethinking the fundamental aims of the EU from an equality perspective. This likelihood is 

increased even further by the fact that GM lacks specific objectives on reducing gender 

inequalities and is fairly vague, which allows it to be easily reshaped and relocated within other 

policy frames.  

The EU’s Structural Funds were the first test case for the Commission’s new GM 

mandate. The Commission created a set of draft Regulations for 2000-2006, which mainstreamed 

gender across every area of structural operations. The proposed Regulations presented ten 

articles containing specific requirements for effective and successful incorporation of a gendered 

perspective at every stage in the policy process. Strategical framing was consistently used 

throughout the drafting and negotiation process, as GM was framed not only as a means to 

achieve gender equality, but also as an issue of social justice and economic growth (Pollack and 

Hafner-Burton 2000: 441). This stretching of the gender equality goal placed it alongside other 

political goals to resonate with other policy frames. There was little resistance and the gender 

provisions of the new Regulations were adopted by the Council of Ministers with very few 

changes, marking a success for GM (Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000: 442). However, one 

consequence of this was greater attention accorded to an ‘equal treatment’ perspective instead of 

a ‘gender’ perspective, and the main objective of the Structural Funds with regard to gender 

equality was stated as being increased female in the labour market (Braithwaite 2000: 11). 

Despite requirements that a gender perspective be applied to all areas of the Structural Funds, 

this has not been the case as “hard” areas (such as transport and energy) have been insulated 

from this and only “soft” areas (such as training and agrotourism) have been subject to a gender 

perspective (Braithwaite 2000: 7). Recent studies have shown that there are very few specific 

equality objectives and actions within Structural Fund documents, and only rarely is a ‘gender’ 

perspective used (EWL 2002: 1). This demonstrates a significant shift away from the initial 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 76

understanding of GM and the experience of GM within the Structural Funds has led to the 

conclusion that the “European Commission is stronger on policy formulation than on developing 

accompanying arguments, procedures and instruments for translating policy into practice” 

(Braithwaite 2000: 7). In another study, Mark Pollack and Emilie Hafner-Burton examined five 

issue-areas of the EU and found that mainstreaming advocates employed strategical framing 

within all five areas. They further argued that this act of strategical framing had a direct impact 

in shaping the EU’s approach to GM as an integrationist strategy rather than transformative 

(2000: 452).  

The Structural Funds case illustrates many of the difficulties GM faces within the EU. 

There have been persistent criticisms that EU mainstreaming efforts have not effectively been 

incorporated with many of the core areas of EU policy and spending, such as transport, 

competition, environment, foreign policy, and agriculture (Woodward 2008: 75). Resistance to 

GM has been fairly common across departments and there has been significant variation in 

approaches to mainstreaming across divisions of the Commission. The incorporation of GM is 

made more difficult by its use of predominantly “soft” policy instruments, such as benchmarking 

and guidelines, which are generally voluntary. The use of soft policy measures has limited the 

scope of GM within the EC and results have been reported to be uneven, fragile and vulnerable 

to setbacks or reversals (Rubery 2002: 510). Such tepid outcomes of GM are not accidental. 

Various policy areas employing a policy frame which is antagonistic to equality aims have 

rejected a ‘gender’ perspective; while this has been mitigated by strategical framing practices, 

the act of strategical framing has encouraged GM to adopt an integrationist approach and 

relinquish its transformative potential in order to gain a place on the policy agenda. The degree 

to which a particular policy area has had experience dealing with gender policies, prior to the 

introduction of Mainstreaming, has been proven to be inversely correlated to the extent of 

compromise required by the very tools which are intended to challenge and transform gender 

norms (Woodward 2008: 67). A sympathetic policy frame is likely to find a resonance with GM 

and a ‘gender’ policy frame, whereas a frame that is unfamiliar with gender issues will require a 

greater degree of strategical framing. It is questionable whether the short-term successes of 

strategical framing are worth the constraining effects felt in the long-term, for without its 

potential to transform dominant norms, GM becomes a toothless policy approach which is likely 

to be used to legitimate economic goals rather than contribute to the pursuit of equality.   



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 77

Widespread confusion about what GM strategies involve have led to concerns about its 

vulnerability to being co-opted and used against feminist goals, or reduced to merely a “tick 

box.” In the absence of firm and understandable definitions of gender equality or mainstreaming, 

how can such goals be realized and strategies be operationalized? While any definition of gender 

equality must remain open and flexible, ambiguous references allow the definition to become a 

“chameleon, changing colour with every social and political context” (Verloo 2005: 355). 

Conceptualization of the goal itself, as well as an idea of how to operationalize the goal, is 

essential in order to realize GM’s transformative potential. Ute Behning and Serrano Pascual 

(2001) examined the impact of GM in national practices of employment and found that 

understandings of GM varied widely, from equal participation to affirmative action, or reform of 

government. They concluded, however, that most GM policies were simply a continuation of 

previous equality policies (Behning and Pascual 2001). 

Twelve years after its original launch, GM has failed to radically transform policy 

processes within the EU. It has had limited reach in policy-areas and continues to be kept outside 

the debate with regard to core EU macroeconomic policies. In the areas where it has been most 

successful, it has been criticized as being a mere continuation of previous gender policies rather 

than the start of a new approach. In other areas, it has been employed as an excuse to dismantle 

women’s machinery and eliminate positive action programs. The resistance to GM within EU 

institutions demonstrates continued challenges to the adoption of a gender equality frame. 

Strategical framing of GM has been shown to be ineffective, merely diluting the meaning of GM 

concepts which are absorbed into other policy frames, rather than promoting a strong gender 

equality frame. Evidence of a declining focus on gender issues, coupled with the dismantling of 

equality programs and diminishing attention to promoting the equal sharing of unpaid care work 

between men and women, suggests that GM has done little substantively to advance gender 

equality. The institutionalization of GM within EU policy processes provides the transformative 

potential for policies to become more inclusive and sensitive to gender and diversity; however, 

achieving this potential will only occur through a consideration of the power relationships 

involved in the politics of framing. Gender equality must be pursued as an essential goal in its 

own right within a strategy of mainstreaming; strategical framing will downplay the importance 

of gender equality and privilege other policy priorities, thereby relegating GM to an 

integrationist approach. As long as equality is seen as an instrument to achieve broader 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 78

employment and economic goals, GM will be unable to achieve its transformative potential in 

leading us to a world beyond gender.  

 

 

Conclusion 

 

The EU has presented a favourable opportunity structure for feminist groups, allowing 

multiple points of access to the policy process and embedding various allies within its 

institutional structure. This equality machinery has been instrumental in the development of 

equality policies (Ross 2001: 203). However, despite initial correlations with feminist 

understandings of equality, EU policy has eventually shifted back towards economic concerns 

within each time period. Such shifts have been gradual and uneven, but a historical analysis 

reveals that the EU has maintained a liberal approach to equality and has limited meanings of 

equality to ‘equal treatment’ in the labour market. Increasing labour market participation has 

simultaneously been a goal of its dominant policy frame of economic growth. Despite an 

extensive gender regime, equality legislation has faced persistent challenges. Conflicts between 

policy frames involve struggles over power; backed by unequal resources, advocates of equality 

goals have employed strategical framing in order to overcome this disadvantage. While 

strategical framing has been relatively successful in providing equality goals an initial place on 

the policy agenda, over time this opening has narrowed as equality concepts have been watered 

down and subsumed within the dominant frame. Strategical framing can therefore be seen as a 

combination of enabling and constraining effects and must be employed carefully, with great 

attention to how power is at work within such practices. This strategy is especially dangerous 

when employed to create linkages between GM and other policy frames, for GM’s greatest 

strength is its ability to challenge dominant norms. Strategical framing weakens this capacity and 

increases the likelihood that it will be integrated into the dominant policy frame and used to 

legitimate economic goals. While the enabling elements of strategical framing have been useful 

for equality goals, it has not yet proven to be effective at providing equality issues with a 

sustainable position on the policy agenda. Feminists must rely upon deeper analyses of how 

power frames EU policies and discourse, using this knowledge to explore how to shift the 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 79

balance of strategical framing effects in their favour and how to sustain attention to equality 

goals over longer periods of time.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 80

 

Bibliography 
 
Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. 

London: Sage Publications. 
Behning, Ute and Amparo Serrano Pascual. 2001. “Rethinking the Gender Contract? Gender 

Mainstreaming in the European Employment Strategy.” In European Trade Union Yearbook 
2000, ed. Emilio Gabaglio and Reiner Hoffman. Brussels: ETUI.  

Beveridge, Fiona and Sue Nott. 2002. “Mainstreaming: A Case for Optimism and Cynicism” 
Feminist Legal Studies 10(3-4): 299-311. 

Bleijenbergh, Inge, Jet Bussemaker, Jeanne de Bruijn. 2006. “Trading Well-Being for Economic 
Efficiency: The 1990 Shift in EU Childcare Policies.” Marriage and Family Review 39(3/4): 
315-336. 

Bleijenbergh, Inge and Conny Roggeband. 2007. “Equality Machineries Matter: The Impact of 
Women’s Political Pressure on European Social-Care Policies.” Social Politics 14(4): 437-
459. 

Braithwaite, Mary. 1999. “Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities in the Structural Funds: how regions 
in Germany, France and the United Kingdom are putting into practice the new approach. 
Final Report of the survey of current practice and findings of the seminar at Gelsenkirchen, 
January 21-22 1999.” European Commission, DG Regional Policy and Cohesion. 

---. 2000. “Mainstreaming Gender in the European Structural Funds.” Mainstreaming Gender in 
European Public Policy Workshop, University of Wisconsin-Madison 15 October 2000. 
<http://eucenter.wisc.edu/Conferences/Gender/braith.htm>. 

Cain, Patricia A. 1989. “Feminism and the Limits of Equality.” Georgia Law Review 24: 803-848.  
Commission of the European Communities. 1981. “A New Community Action Programme on the 

Promotion of Equal Opportunities for Women 1982-85.” Commission Communication to the 
Council. COM (81) 758 final, 9 December 1981.  

---. 1986. “Second Medium-Term Community Programme on Equal Opportunities for Women 
(1986-1990).” COM (85) 81 final, 19 December 1985.  

---. 1990. “Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. Third Medium-Term Community Action 
Programme 1991-1995.” COM (90) 449 final, 6 November 1990.  

---. 1990a. Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of the Worker. Luxembourg: Office 
for Official Publications of the European Communities (OOPEC).  

---. 1996. “Fourth Medium-Term Community Action Programme on Equal Opportunities for Women 
and Men 1996-2000.” COM (95) 593 final, 22 December 1995.  

---. 1996a. Communication on Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all 
Community Policies and Activities. COM (96) 67 final, 21 February 1996. 

---. 1998. Progress Report from the Commission on the Follow-Up of the Comunication: 
Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and 
Activities. COM (98) 122 final, 4 March 1998.  

Connell, R.W. 1994. “The State, Gender and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal.” In 
Power/Gender: Social Relations in Theory and Practice, ed. H. Lorraine Radtke and 
Henderikus J. Stam. London: Sage Publications. 136-173. 

Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. 1998. Recommendation No. R(98) 14 of the Committee 
of Ministers to Member States on Gender Mainstreaming. Adopted by the Committee of 
Ministers on 7 October 1998 at the 643rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.  

Council of the European Communities. 1992. “Council Recommendation of 31.3.92 on Child Care 
(92/241/EEC).” OJ L 123/8 May 1992.  



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 81

---. 1996. “Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the Framework Agreement on Parental 
Leave Concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC.” OJ L 145/19 June 1996.  

Duncan, Simon. 1996. “Obstacles to a Successful Equal Opportunities Policy in the European 
Union.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 3(4): 399-422. 

---. 2002. “Policy Discourses on ‘Reconciling Work and Life’ in the EU.” Social Policy & Society 
1(4): 304-314. 

European Commission. 1994a. Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways 
Forward into the 21st Century. White Paper. Luxembourg: OOPEC.  

---. 1994b. Social Policy – A Way Forward for the Union. White Paper. COM(94) 333, final of 27 
July 1994. Luxembourg: OOPEC.  

---. 1996. “Living and Working in the Information Society: People First.” COM(96) 389 final, 24 
July 1996. Green Paper. Bulletin of the European Union Supplement 3/96. Luxembourg: 
OOPEC. 

---. 2008. Gender Mainstreaming of Employment Policies: A Comparative Review of thirty European 
countries. Luxembourg: OOPEC.  

European Commission Childcare Network. 1990. Childcare in the European Community 1985-1990. 
Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.  

European Women’s Lobby. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming in the Structural Funds: Establishing 
Gender Justice in the Distribution of Financial Resources.” Brussels: EWL. 
<http://www.womenlobby.org>. 

Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice Interruptus. New York: Routledge.  
Hantrais, Linda (ed.). 2000. Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life. 

London: Macmillan.  
Hoskyns, Catherine. 1996. Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union. 

New York: Verso. 
Jahan, Rounaq. 1996. “The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development.” Pakistan 

Development Review 35(4): 825-834.  
Jenson, Jane and Mariette Sineau. 2001. Who Cares? Women’s Work, Childcare, and Welfare State 

Redesign. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 
Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminists Theorize the State. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.  
Lewis, Jane. 2006. “Work/Family Reconciliation, Equal Opportunities and Social Policies: The 

Interpretation of Policy Trajectories at the EU Level and the Meaning of Gender Equality.” 
Journal of European Public Policy 13(3): 420-437. 

Lombardo, Emanuela and Petra Meier. 2006. “Gender Mainstreaming in the EU: Incorporating a 
Feminist Reading?” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13(2): 151-166.  

Mackinnon, Catharine. 1989. Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. London: Harvard University 
Press. 

Mahon, Rianne. 2002. “Child Care: Toward What Kind of ‘Social Europe’?” Social Politics 9(3): 
343-366.  

Mazey, Sonia. 1998. “The European Union and Women’s Rights: From the Europeanization of 
National Agendas to the Nationalization of a European Agenda?” Journal of European 
Public Policy 5(1): 131-152. 

---. 2000. “Introduction: Integrating Gender – Intellectual and ‘Real World’ Mainstreaming.” Journal 
of European Public Policy 7(3 Special Issue): 333-345. 

---. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the EU: Delivering on an Agenda?” Feminist Legal 
Studies 10(3-4): 227-240. 

O’Connor, Julia S. 2005. “Employment-Anchored Social Policy, Gender Equality and the Open 
Method of Coordination in the European Union.” European Societies 7(1): 27-52. 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 5 issue 1/2009 © RERA 2009 all rights reserved 
 

 82

Peterson, Elin. 2007. “The Invisible Carers: Framing Domestic Work(ers) in Gender Equality 
Policies in Spain.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 14(3): 265-280.  

Pollack, M.A., and E. Hafner-Burton. 2000. “Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union.” 
Journal of European Public Policy 7(3 Special Issue): 432-456. 

Randall, Vicky. 1996. “Feminism and Child Daycare.” Journal of Social Policy 25(4): 485-505. 
---. 2000. “Childcare Policy in the European States: Limits to Convergence.” Journal of European 

Public Policy 7(3 Special Issue): 346-368. 
Rees, Teresa. 1998. Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and 

Labour Market Policies. London: Routledge.  
Ross, George. 2001. “Europe: An Actor without a Role.” In Who Cares? Women’s Work, Childcare, 

and Welfare State Redesign, ed. Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau. Toronto: University of 
Toronto Press. 177-213.  

Rubery, Jill. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in the EU: The Impact of the EU 
Employment Strategy.” Industrial Relations Journal 33(5): 500-522. 

Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1992. “Master frames and cycles of protest” In Frontiers of 
Social Movement Theory, ed. Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven: 
Yale University Press.  

Squires, Judith. 2005. “Is Mainstreaming Transformative? Theorizing Mainstreaming in the Context 
of Diversity and Deliberation,” Social Politics 12(3): 366-388.   

Stratigaki, Maria. 2000. “The European Union and the Equal Opportunities Process” in Gendered 
Policies in Europe, ed. Linda Hantrais. Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd.  

---. 2004. “The Cooptation of Gender Concepts in EU Policies: The Case of ‘Reconciliation of Work 
and Family’.” Social Politics 11(1): 30-56. 

---. 2005. “Gender Mainstreaming vs. Positive Action: An Ongoing Conflict in EU Gender Equality 
Policy.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 12(2): 165-186. 

Verloo, Mieke. 2005. “Displacement and Empowerment: Reflections on the Concept and Practice of 
the Council of Europe Approach to Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality.” Social 
Politics 12(3): 344-365.  

Walby, Sylvia. 2004. “The European Union and Gender Equality: Emergent Varieties of Gender 
Regime.” Social Politics 11(1): 4-29. 

Woodward, Alison. 2008. “European Gender Mainstreaming: Promises and Pitfalls of 
Transformative Policy” Review of Policy Research 20(1): 65-88.  

Young, Brigitte. 2000. “Disciplinary Neoliberalism in the European Union and Gender Politics.” 
New Political Economy 5(1): 77-98. 

Zippel, Kathrin. 2004. “Transnational Advocacy Networks and Policy Cycles in the European Union: 
The Case of Sexual Harassment.”Social Politics 11(1): 57-85).