Feminism in Policy-making in Retrospect
Introduction
History states that the Second-wave of Feminism in Australia occurred in the late 1960s to the late 1970s and early 1980s. This time, feminists have rebuffed the household as the primary domain of women, and has fought for women’s equal access to the public sphere — education, workplace, and politics. They have lobbied for equal pay, employment opportunity, and access to education, reasonably priced childcare, free contraception, and abortion on demand.[1] These feminists have come to be known as “femocrats”, a term coined by (1996). Femocrats function to incorporate the issues of gender sensitivity in mainstream bureaucracy.[2] In other words, they are feminists who are bureaucrats. These femocrats therefore belong to the brand of liberal feminism.
The writer of this paper stands on the ground that social inequality, gender inequality in this case, can be addressed by aiming the primary target — access. It is by having the access to the distribution of resources that men and women alike will be able to receive equal benefits. In the case of Australia, feminists have thought of acquiring bureaucratic posts in order to change the way policies are being formulated. By doing so, femocrats are able to create the right kind of policies that will be beneficial for both sexes, at the same time institutionalize them. It has been reported that in the 1990s, 1254 women has stood for election to federal parliament. They have brought to the parliament the issues of sexual assault, domestic violence and reproductive freedom.[3]
According to (1996), Australian feminists has found out that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet at federal level, departments of Premier and Cabinet at state level, and Chief Ministers’ departments at territory level are the key posts in order for policy co-ordination to become a reality. Also, an at least one gender expert adviser has been put forward in the Prime Minister’s office in parliament.[4] Apart from this, it has been reported that in the southern portion of Australia, women are actively running the Union. Their positions extend from appointed union positions to senior elected officials, consisting of secretaries, presidents, and other various peak posts in the Council.[5] Thus, women’s equity interests are addressed because they have the “access”. They share position with men on the grip of the faucet by which the water will flow.
The succeeding paragraphs expose the policies, which have been influenced by the feminist ideology. At the same time, these policies are going to be analyzed according to these questions: How did feminism transform the formulation of policies? In general, terms, has there been a positive or a negative change that took place? Lastly, did the femocrats attain its goal of women emancipation?
Education
Femocrats have significantly influenced policy-making in one of the most important social institutions of society, Education. They have legitimized female’s equality with males through the 1987 National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian schools. Its educational values and principles state that: a) gender is not a determinant of capacity to learn; b) girls and boys should be valued equally in all aspects of schooling; c) equality of opportunity and outcomes in education for girls and boys may require differential provision, at least for a period of time; d) schools should educate girls and boys for satisfying, responsible and productive living, including work inside and outside the home; e) schools should provide a challenging learning environment which is socially and culturally supportive and physically comfortable for girls and boys; and f) schools and systems should be organised and resources provided and allocated to ensure that the capacities of girls and boys are fully and equally realised.[6] Although its values and principles refer to both girls and boys, it is a policy intended to advance the status of the former, at the youngest age.
Femocrats have transformed the course of the socialization process of young Australian girls and boys alike because of this policy. They have brought forth an institutionalized social interaction between the 2 sexes, in which, young as these citizens are, they are to treat each other in an equitable manner. (2000) remarks that this national schooling policy, being the first, is an accomplishment per se.[7] In this respect, femocrats have successfully answered their outcry for women liberation through education.
However, the aforementioned policy has resulted into a drawback from the males. It has evolved into a “Gender Equity” policy. It is said to be the newest framework, which is currently being implemented in Australian schools at the national level. The national government has paid attention to the outcry — “What about the boys?” There is truth behind ’s (2000) argument, which resonated ’s discourse analysis, that the 1987 National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools has led to the surfacing of a discourse of the boys’ disempowerment in the society. [8] To a certain extent, feminism has contributed to the realization among policy-makers that gender equity is a matter of empowering not only one but both sides of the same coin. However, feminism has made the other gender to be aware of the power that they possess in society. It has only challenged male dominance. The shift in framework by the government in its educational policy has resulted to empowering women but likewise maintaining the power of the male.
According to (2000), the House of Representatives has been investigating a policy for the education of the boys in terms of literacy. These authors perceive that such course of action is a manifestation of the shutting down of formulating policies that will attend to the education of the girls.[9] Does this therefore lead us to the conclusion that femocrats have failed in the attainment of their goals? Perhaps, they have only failed in foreseeing this unintended consequence of influencing the formulation of policies for the good of women. They have only responded to the immediate manifestation of a world where women equal with men in various respects. They have fell short of the implication for men of such action.
Health
How can the delivery of the Australian government’s health services be delivered among women best? One million women have been consulted and answered that they should have the following chances. They have to be dealt with dignity and respect. They have to be permitted in the decision-making process. They have to be tendered with better means to services. They should have the freedom to choose who will deliver the service. Lastly, they should have the access to information that rests on a salient research that focuses on women. This has been known as the National Women’s Health Policy (NWHP). In 1993, its function has been refined into one that centralizes on the social environment of women’s health.[10] The government’s quest to deliver its health services better is able to generate the immediate responses to attend to the needs of its health service beneficiaries. There have been priority issues behind the said policy, which recognizes the social roles of women and their concerns all through the life cycle. These are reproductive health and sexuality, occupational health and safety, health of aging women, the health needs of women as carers, violence against women, women’s emotional and mental health, and the impacts of sex-role stereotyping on health.[11]
The government is able to create a policy, which clearly takes heed of what the women beneficiaries demand from the delivery of its health service. In the formulation of NHWP, the identity and/or being of women have been clearly recognized, which is essential for the government to bring forth social justice. The policy has indeed responded to the needs of its women beneficiaries. What is stated in the policy is what they really want from the health system. For instance, their wish for female doctors to attend to their health has been granted. The rationale behind is that female patients deem that female doctors serves them best because they are being treated with dignity and respect.
That female doctors know best to handle their female patients is believed to contain truth-value. On the other hand, does this not dislocate the doctors? What implication does this bring for the doctors? The policy has only addressed women according to their needs, as health consumers. It has not included altering the doctors’ treatment of their female patients. When in fact, the root cause of this “improper” treatment are the doctors themselves.
In a different light, the inclusion of training health care professionals, who are women in particular, have advanced women in the public domain that is health. According to (1996), it altered the mainstream medical practice.[12] Likewise, women’s participation in the process of decision-making is essential in advancing their voices in the creation of policies. In these circumstances, the struggle against marginality is a march to victory.
It has been discovered that the feminism has influenced policy making in a manner wherein it has treated the female species as one homogenous group. This is one of its repercussions, which has fallen short of notice. According to (1999), NHWP might exclude those who do not have the ability to afford the costs of the health services.[13] Gender is but one issue. Class is another, and feminists should likewise act to address this issue.
Women and Work
Statistics are saying that Australian women are increasingly participating in the work organizations. According to (1997), as cited in (1998), the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey brings to light that female involvement in male dominated industries is escalating.[14] Therefore, women are significantly entering the labor force, and running the industries.
The Affirmative Action Act of 1986 is all about providing an equal employment opportunity for women. It has gone through 2 reviews, in 1992 and 1998 respectively. Originally, it asks all private sector employers with 100 or more employees and institutions of higher education to discover the root causes of gender-based bias and resolve them at the same time. Then in the Effectiveness review of 1992, it has extended the action to the community organizations, non-government schools, unions, and group training systems. In 1998, the review has enabled the legislation to evaluate its effect on the competitiveness of business and extended further the action to the small businesses. Interestingly, the parliament ostracizes the employer who fails to produce a report of progress, by shamefully naming him in the institution.[15] What a punishment for a failure to comply!
The policy seems promising in addressing the problem of gender inequality in the workplace. Feminism has influenced policy-making to institutionalize the act of addressing the issue of gender sensitivity not only among work organizations, but also to all other organizations in the land. It has coerced them to be aware of the issue at hand. Thus, according to (1998), women have been liberalized in terms of taking part in the workplace itself, re-entry programs, women and paternity leave rights, childcare provision, jobsharing, job training, and promotional entitlements. According to (2002), unpaid parental leave in Australia has been the most munificent, which is at 52 weeks.[16]
However, definitions of work and merit serve as a hindrance to gender equity in the workplace.[17] It has been found out that the values that dominate the workplace belong to the male category. For instance, females are usually being labeled as emotional while the males are rational. If arriving at a rational decision is the norm, then women are already denied the access to her promotion in the workplace, given the stereotype in the background.
Femocrats seem to have influenced policies based on the superficial. They have not accomplished the underlying dynamics of real power play within the workplace per se. (1991) asserts that women are compelled to exhibit masculine values, which are the hegemonic values both in the public and private domains of society. Corollary to this, according to (1991), in the said policy, women are benefited if and only if they “fit the corporate image”.[18] These further lead to the implication that females should set aside their feminine values with masculine ones in order to fit in. At this point, the policy has only strengthened the existing patriarchal structure in the society. Femocrats and female members of the Australian parliament are in no doubt guilty of this.
Domestic Violence
(2005) has found out that Australian social service provisions are “crisis oriented”, thereby centering on granting accommodation, welfare assistance, and emergency support services to women and children.[19] Feminists therefore should concentrate the formulation of gender equitable policies based on the cause and not merely on the effects. Furthermore, according to (2005), in reality, the correlation between domestic violence and employment is often ignored in Australian research and practice, which they believe to be damaging to both women and their children who are affected by domestic violence. A proof of the matter is the unwillingness of women to disclose their experiences of domestic violence to employment agencies. These authors are likewise advocating employment as the way out for women who are affected by domestic violence; thus rendering employment agencies as essential, since these are the ones capable of making policies, even at the lowest level, that will benefit the worker-victims.[20]
In this respect, femocrats have only raised the alarm to certain agencies that will respond to the issue of domestic violence. To borrow ’s (2000) term, they have only become crisis-oriented. They are yet to affect the creation of policies that will really discuss the issue of domestic violence with the participation of other important organizations and institutions in the society.
Childcare
The Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is a policy in which, public or private institutions are specializing in childcare. Simply put, this is the government’s way of socializing the young citizens to be the best citizens of the country. [21] Femocrats have significantly affected childcare policy-making in such a way that the parental role of childcare is passed on to the state. This opens up for various views, such as state versus family, mothers getting rid of their parental role, childcare as consumerism, etc.
Whether this has been a positive or a negative impact of feminism in policy-making is still a hanging subject. Did women really attain its liberation by getting rid of their parental role? What are the implications of this kind of societal setup? Such childcare policy has its consequences that may be good or bad for some. Women are given the time to concentrate and devote most of their time on the public domain — education, workplace, politics, which is exactly what they are struggling for. Such policy has actually paved the way for these feminists or femocrats to their desired end.
The Australian government’s education, health, labor, and childcare policies have so far been scrutinized. All except the latter have influenced policy in terms of meeting what has been the superficial demand. Policies are produced according to what the females are shouting for, without considering how the other members of the social group are going to be affected. Childcare policy seems to be the one that has a deeper implication on social change in Australian society. It places the heaviest weight on the roles of women to play as parents. Feminists or femocrats still need to address the issue of domestic violence in policy-making. It goes to show that feminists or femocrats still have a long and winding road to traverse as they head towards women emancipation. Is it possible for a Third-Wave of Feminism to occur? Who knows…
Recommendations
According to (2003), individuals who are engaged in policy-making share the similar view that a change in language is a tangible marker of a change in the society. Furthermore, the author concludes that the point of intersection between gender mainstreaming and policy-making and implementation is language or communication. (1992), as cited in (2003) is advocating the stand that politically correct terms, constructed by feminists, have to be channeled through the media, education, and lexicography so that these will be fully legitimized to and by the public.[22] In effect, gender equity can be incorporated in Australian culture when Australians speak of the issue on a daily basis. Language is the key to one’s culture. Therefore, gender equity has to be reflected in language, in the manner individuals communicate to each other,
(1998) recommend that key actors in the Australian workforce should engage in a consensus-based dialog to create a better working environment for both sexes.[23] For instance, in the definition of merit, which the authors reckoned problematic, men and women should engage in a consensus as to how it should be defined in such a way that no one is excluded. This likewise goes along with ’s (2003) suggestion as mentioned above.
Femocrats have started right, by aiming at access. However, they should likewise have recourse to the backlashes behind the frameworks they are prescribing among policy-makers or using in policy-making. After access comes the effect, which they should seriously investigate. This way they are able to acquire a better foundation for their objectives in policy-making.
Conclusion
Over the last 2 decades, feminism has strikingly altered the course Australian society. The accepted way of creating policies has been one that is fair to both sexes. The policies showcased herein have been quick enough to respond to the demands of the people. Feminists or femocrats should consider as well the implications of their policies to the other forces of society. There will always be a feedback to their struggle for emancipation.
Bibliography:
Books:
Journals:
Internet:
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment