Christine Lagarde, the first female managing director of the International Monetary Fund, speaking at the Forbes Women’s Summit in New York City, declared: “There are only 6 countries in the world where there is no legal discrimination at all between men and women.”

Or put another way: Of the IMF’s 189 member countries, nearly 90% have at least one gender-based legal restriction, from limitations on what women can inherit and whether they can borrow money to prohibitions on their ability to take custody of their children. Lagarde’s assessment: “We need to work on that.”

The IMF aims to ensure the stability of the global monetary system, promote international trade and economic growth, and reduce poverty. It wields $1 trillion in lending power for its members. Lagarde sees empowering women as more than a social imperative, because it has the potential to transform the global economy. As inequality rises, the gap between men’s and women’s participation in the workforce is hovering at around 16%, even in advanced economies. She believes major economic woes could be lessened by narrowing this gap. “It’s just a no-brainer that economies would grow, productivity would improve, and we would have more stability,” she said.

The first global index measuring efforts to end gender inequality finds countries are not doing enough to improve women’s lives, and no country in the world is on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.

Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said the index, launched in June, “should serve as a wake-up call to the world”.

Even the Nordic states, which score highly in the index, would need to take huge strides to fulfil gender commitments in the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), which 193 countries signed up to in 2015. The goals are considered the blueprint for global efforts to end poverty and inequality and halt the climate crisis. The deadline to meet them is 2030.

SDG 5 requires signatories to address gender inequality. The inaugural SDG Gender Index, developed by the Equal Measures 2030 partnership, found that 2.8 billion women and girls currently live in countries that are not doing enough to improve women’s lives.  The gender equality index ranked Denmark highest. Australia ranked 10^th out of 129, the UK ranked 17^th, and the USA ranked 28^th.

In June 2019, the International Labour Organisation adopted a new Convention and Recommendation to combat violence and harassment in the workplace at the International Labour Conference. The Convention recognises that violence and harassment in the workplace can constitute a human rights violation or abuse, is a threat to equal opportunities, is unacceptable and is incompatible with decent work.

The Convention provides a broad definition of "violence and harassment" and describes where it can take place. It defines “violence and harassment” as behaviours, practices or threats “that aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm.” The standard covers violence and harassment occurring in the workplace; places where a worker is paid, takes a rest or meal break, or uses sanitary, washing or changing facilities; during work-related trips, travel, training, events or social activities; work-related communications...in employer-provided accommodation; and when commuting to and from work.

The Convention states that everyone has the right to be free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence, at work. It requires governments to take measures to protect workers from violence and harassment, especially women. It reminds member States that they have a responsibility to promote a zero tolerance. The recognises that employers can also be subjected to violence and harassment.

Over the past few decades of Australian life, government policies have gradually offered more support to working mothers, particularly through childcare subsidies and parental leave.  But what motivates Australian parents in their choices around work and childcare?

Historian Carla Pascoe Leahy from the University of Melbourne has been researching Australian motherhood from 1945 to the present. Her oral histories, reported in The Conversation, reflect a wide diversity of experiences of Australian mothers, but there are consistent threads in their narratives. Most mothers want some continuity with their pre-maternal identity, to feel a sense of meaningful contribution to their society, and to enjoy their relationships with their children.

Her conclusions: if government fails to comprehend the reasons why mothers choose to engage with different supports, family policy will be of limited effectiveness. Workforce participation and economic productivity are reasonable objectives of government policy, but they are not sufficient on their own.

When the PM announced his cabinet, it included 7 women ministers – a good sign – but only 23% of the Coalition’s MPs are women compared to 47% for the ALP – not impressive.  However, as researchers Sue Williamson and Prof Linda Colley explain in The Conversation, it’s not just the number of women MPs that matters, it’s how they legislate for change.

According to neoliberal feminists, the struggle for gender equality is no longer dependent on collective action by society, rather it’s up to individual women to make the most of their opportunities and find success.  But a policy focus on individual women’s advancement can risk overlooking the underlying causes of gender inequality, a key aspect of BPW Australia’s advocacy.  

In November 2018, the Coalition government released its Women’s Economic Security Statement which contained three main “pillars” to achieving gender equality – workforce participation, earning potential and economic independence. The researchers assessed how effective they’ll be in improving women’s lives. They concluded that Australia needs a systemic approach that includes major reforms to the welfare system, increased funding and resources for domestic violence, improved housing affordability, and reforms to the tax system that take account of impacts on women. Yes, neoliberal feminism may benefit some women, but is unlikely to herald long-lasting changes that improve the lives of all women, particularly those at the lower end of the pay scale.

Financy questions: is it worth returning to work given the excessive cost of childcare? Women shouldn’t have to ask themselves this, but many do without considering their long-term financial security or their own dreams.  Many women weigh up childcare costs with working, but consider the risks, not just for the woman’s career prospects but for the whole family’s financial security.  Career breaks to have children are a key contributor to the superannuation savings gap that affects the financial security of women. Although these career breaks are often referred to as a choice made by the primary carer (namely women), the cost of childcare is a key financial consideration and a critical enabler of female workforce participation.

Natasha Janssens, author of Wonder Woman’s Guide to Money, says that a 25-year-old woman on a full-time yearly income of $60,000 stands to lose roughly $170,000 in superannuation by taking five years out of the workforce between age 35 and 40 and $400,000 if she takes 10 years out between 30 and 40. But if you knew that you would lose $400,000 in your retirement savings by staying at home to look after your kids full-time for 10 years, would you still think childcare was too expensive?

Women on Boards reports there is a mismatch in the skills and experience boards are recruited on and those that are effective in the boardroom.  Prof. Stanislaw Shekshnia from INSEAD, speaking at a Women on Boards breakfast, observed that there was “a big difference between what makes you a board member and what makes you effective in the boardroom”. 

Besides broad expertise and ambition for the institution, skills that make you effective in the boardroom include: soft skills such as listening, questioning and feedback; openness and learning capability; personal humility and maturity; sound preparation and willingness to commit time and focus.  But companies recruit their board members based on: their name; their CV; their network; and their industry knowledge.

Prof. Shekshnia’s research in Europe indicated the attributes most likely to have you selected and appointed as a board chair are being a man and being a CEO. Women appointed as chairs tended to be older at first appointment, formally educated and have experience as an independent director.

Michelle Staff, a PhD student at ANU with an interest in women's and gender history, analyses the current and historical drivers of women's Parliamentary representation.

Australia was the first country in the world to grant (some) women the dual rights of voting and standing for parliament in 1902; South Australia had already granted these rights to all women in 1894.  

Despite some significant advances since, Australia still lags behind global standards. Before the 2019 federal election, Australia was 48^th in the world in terms of women’s lower house representation, tied with Angola and Peru and falling below many other countries such as Rwanda, Nepal and Ecuador.

The election has increased the proportion of women in parliament from 33% to around 35%, which clearly falls short of equal representation. This is a problem particularly for the Liberal party: only 23% of their representatives are women compared to the ALP’s 47%.  Although Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s new ministry is being touted for its “record” number of women, the 7 women in the ministry hold just 8 of the 28 total cabinet positions.

So why are women still struggling to make gains in our parliament and what does this say about the state of our democracy?  In The Conversation, Michelle explores the history of women's suffrage and tracks the discriminatory barriers that still impact today.

The Women’s Leadership Institute Australia has examined women's representation in the media and identified a problem: there are plenty of women working in the media, but that doesn't translate into media presence. As the '2019 Women For Media Report' shows, “...the media reality is that women are not experts, not sources. As those sources, we are missing from news stories and from feature stories, we are missing from photos both as photographers and as subjects; and we are missing in that very influential place in the Australian media landscape, our voices are missing from opinion pieces and columns.” 

In this third instalment to the excellent Women For Media survey series, the news for news hounds is that the big story in gender inequality is in fact buried beneath the headlines.  Broad Agenda provides an excellent summary or access the full report.

From Girls to Men: Social attitudes to gender equality in Australia is a research program hosted by the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation at the University of Canberra. The research program studies the attitudes of boys and girls, men and women to gender issues relating to equality and empowerment. The report presents the findings derived from a national online survey of 2,122 Australians which explored the attitudes of boys, girls, men and women to equality and empowerment. The findings are alarming.  Read the full report and the summary snapshot.

Millennials, born between 1982 and 2000, are often portrayed as accepting and valuing gender equality.  However, the survey results suggest Australia is following an international trend whereby Millennial and Gen X men are backsliding into traditional value systems.  

Virginia Haussegger AM, the Director of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, is concerned that gender equality progress in Australia is in trouble. She reports that, despite Australia’s leadership in developing some of the best anti-discrimination legislative frameworks in the world, a brewing climate of backlash is emerging as a whole new challenge. Meanwhile, Australian women are failing to flourish as well as they should – particularly given our decade long lead in global rankings for female education.