Gender Equality: The Future of Europe

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Anna Karamanou MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT President of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality

“Gender equality is the future of Europe”… I would like to thank and congratulate Commissioner Mrs. Reding – as well as the organizations that support her – for this timely initiative, as well as for its swift implementation. When we first met in Strasbourg last September, I confided in you (dear Vivian, dear Mrs. Reding) my concerns about the low representation of women in the Constitutional Assembly and the need to develop mechanisms that would counterbalance the expected risk of downgrading women’s concerns in the future Constitution. I also spoke to you at that time about the meetings organized by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of the European Parliament, and the need we felt to gather the specialized knowledge on gender issues, in order to offer our support to the members of the Assembly regarding the relevant provisions.

A short time after our first meeting, you made known your intention to organize this large and high-level meeting of the most distinguished experts on gender issues and issues related to the future of Europe. At the beginning of December, you announced this meeting to the Committee on Women’s Rights, which gave its approval.

I have been eagerly awaiting this particularly important first “Jean Monnet” conference on Equality. I have high expectations from our discussions today, and the same is true for the members of our Committee, who are involved in the Assembly, either directly (Ann Van Lancker, Lone Dybkjaer), or as members of the working group of my Committee, which was created for the Assembly (under the chairmanship of Mrs. Heidi Hautala).

My introduction was extensive, and its length is proportional to the esteem I feel. It is also proportional to the need we all feel in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality to follow the confrontation of academic thought with the questions we will raise today.

I am happy for the responsibility that has been entrusted to me, to define the ideological framework of our discussions, that is, the terms of the challenge we are facing. What is today the link that connects gender equality and the future of Europe?

My speech started with the phrase: Gender equality is the future of Europe… You might ask me: “Why?” and “How?”

I will try to give some answers to these questions, after I make a description of the international framework in which we operate.

The international framework

The process of forming a constitutional treaty in the European Union takes place during a period of large-scale reforms, which have a huge (although often overlooked) impact on gender relations and public policies. Specifically, three developments are shaping the global redistribution of power and resources:

1. European Integration and the upcoming enlargement of the European Union,

2. Globalization and

3. The wounds caused by September 11^th.

I will not go into details, but these are elements worth mentioning in order to understand the framework within which the European Union began the process of forming a common Constitution.

European integration has caused, over the past forty years, a massive restructuring of economic, political, and social resources, not only between different levels of governance (the transfer of national sovereignty) but also among groups of social actors, which of course includes both women and men. A broader European Union, which will now include more than twenty-five members, is very likely to increase tensions between policies that favor competition and those that are related to solidarity, something that already has a strong reflection in the discussions between the members of the Assembly. The consequences will not be neutral for gender equality.

Globalization promises trade development and wealth increase, as well as the dream of a global village, with distances between people erased, thanks to various forms of communication. However, part of the reality also includes growing inequalities, as well as the rapid development of criminal and terrorist networks. This creates the need to develop global policies in order to guarantee fundamental rights. If we want rights to be effective, we must shape them, keeping in mind that inequalities, crime, and war affect men and women in different ways. Therefore, what is designed for men does not fit in every case.

September 11th had a catalytic effect, leading to a particular emphasis on values. Did it strengthen the soft methods of ensuring peace that the European Union had been applying, based on the connection of nations and peoples through networks of mutual interest? Only the future can reveal this. In the meantime, however, the focus of public authorities is on terrorism and the decisive responses that must be given to individual targets. At the same time, however, attention is being diverted from other deeply rooted forms of violence and crime, especially those directed against women.

The restructuring is taking place at a point in time when the role of women has been strengthened:

• Ø The first generation of women who succeeded in controlling the process of childbirth (instead of being controlled by it) is now of mature age.
• Ø Among them, some (even if their number is not sufficient) hold positions of responsibility.
• Ø Women constitute the majority of students in almost all European countries.
• Ø Younger women do not remember (or do not understand) why equality is something one must fight for, yet they have the ambition to influence things and are bothered by the “androcentric” mentality that dominates when it comes to positions of responsibility.
• Ø In general, women are in a difficult position when they are forced to fight for their own rights, in cases where they want to participate in all matters, and their fear is that they will be marginalized as single-issue persons.

The European Assembly creates a new political space.

Or at least it exhibits the characteristics of a new political space: it is the first time that a political region, broader than the group of heads of state and government, expresses and shapes choices regarding the fundamental principles, the rules, and the institutions of the European Union. The open questions are, for what purpose do the peoples desire the European Union, how should it operate, with which institutions will it carry out what, and the Assembly must provide answers to these questions that are widely accepted.

It appears symbolically as a new political space, yet the Assembly is incomplete in a crucial element, which is also recognized as fundamental by a series of accepted political texts: it is a body without gender balance. In an Assembly consisting of a total of 105 members, parliaments, governments, and European institutions appointed only 17 women as their representatives.

Once again, equality is not something taken for granted. It is something that we must clarify, justify, and turn into legislation and reality. I will now try to speak more analytically about what needs to be clarified and justified.

Gender equality is at the heart of Europe’s future.

Why?

For three reasons, in my opinion, important reasons:

First reason: Democracy

We cannot exclude women from the goal of a Europe of the Peoples, a “Europe of Democracy” (in contrast to the “Europe of Diplomacy” of the “fathers of Europe”) for which the European Constitutional Assembly is currently a springboard.

Although the above may seem obvious and no one could disagree with this idea, in practice things are different. How can it be explained that the future of Europe (or at least the process of modernizing its political and institutional framework) is currently being shaped by so many men and so few women members of the European Assembly? This clearly shows that not only must we repeat that “when we do not take women into account, we create a democratic deficit,” but also that we must further define rules and mechanisms that ensure their full participation.

The Assembly was unofficially established in Nice in December 2000 and officially in Laeken a year later. The task it was entrusted with was to prepare the ground for an open and transparent reform of the European Union. Obviously, this is an excellent omen for both democracy and gender equality, as women’s participation could be served by the involvement of a broader range of actors and through a closer relationship with the concerns of citizens.

Looking back, we find that this issue emerged as early as 1989: The fall of the Berlin Wall allowed for the most ambitious enlargement of the European Union, which we see has nearly become a reality. At the same time, the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe also marked a more critical approach to our own, seemingly idealized democratic regimes. The ever-increasing educational level of the population raised new demands regarding popular participation, while the absence of women from decision-making fora began to be seen as a dysfunction.

We have thus reached the point where the absence of women is examined not only in terms of a democratic deficit, but also in terms of “effectiveness” or “ineffectiveness” associated with their absence.

If, as we believe, the goal of a European Constitutional Treaty is to define the highest common rules and standards for the functioning of a European democratic system, then gender equality is both an indicator and a means for shaping democracy: it works, on the one hand, quantitatively – the more women are in decision-making positions, the more balanced and representative those decisions are; but it also works qualitatively – the incorporation of the gender equality dimension was foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty as a means to promote equality policies. In just a few years, and in the cases where it was applied, it has proven to increasingly function as a tool for tracking the outcomes of each policy and their relationship with citizens.

Second reason: The promises of equality have remained unfulfilled in practice, and women’s rights are vulnerable.

The latest Eurostat report on the lives of women and men in the European Union reveals that in Germany, the gender pay gap remains 17% in the public sector and 20% in the private sector. In the United Kingdom, a recent study revealed an unexpected reversal of a trend that had lasted for 20 years: in 2002, the hourly wage gap increased. In Spain, as well as in France, the Netherlands, Greece, and Luxembourg, women make up the majority of the poor, the working poor, and the unemployed. Few of them hold senior administrative positions, while in all EU member states, women bear the greater part of household work. In the United Kingdom, according to a recent media report, although girls perform better than boys in final exams, when they enter the labor market, their wages are 15% lower than those of their male peers.

Each statistic and survey in all member states is, in itself, a story of gender discrimination, a story that resonates with the women of other member states. And of course, let’s not talk about “equality” in the candidate countries for accession, nor about the fact that a woman’s position is even more unfavorable when she belongs to a racial minority at the same time, or when she has a physical disability, when is she gay etc.

The income gap is far from decreasing, as the shrinking public sector and the increasing competition in globalized markets deepen the existing inequalities even further.

This situation cannot be accepted, for reasons of both legitimacy and efficiency.

If the European Union desires legitimacy, it must fulfill its goals. Since the provision for equal pay was included in the Rome Treaty until today, the European Community/European Union has developed many ambitious legislative provisions and strategies to promote equal opportunities for women. Recently, a revised directive on the equal treatment of women and men in the workplace and employment was adopted, strengthening the European Union’s commitment to this principle and making it possible to raise expectations. However, the “rights” of equality do not translate into “in practice” equality. The impression that the European Union gives with one hand and takes with the other is particularly strong, especially among the women of Scandinavia, who consistently make up the majority of negative votes in opinion polls on the European Union.

The cuts in public spending by most governments have created new obstacles for those who do not hold positions of power, particularly for women, for whom it is not feasible to have equal opportunities and take advantage of certain opportunities. This is an obvious fact, which, even when some fail to give it the due attention, remains true. It is impossible for one single person to experience a situation in which they must simultaneously care for an elderly parent, look after their children, and fight to maintain a full-time job. One does not need to have lived this reality to make the connection between macro-political decisions and micro-conditions. Some of us know very well how the erosion of the welfare state primarily impacts the time and resources of women.

What should be done at the European Union level? What is most effectively addressed at the national level… and what should be the shared responsibility of the various levels of government? To answer this question, which is one of the main concerns of the Assembly, the voices of women must be heard, as they mostly have a different experience from that of men in decision-making positions.

The results of recent studies, which reveal the extent of each form of violence—including domestic violence directed at women—and the success of the European Daphne program, clearly show the need to expand the legal basis for combating discrimination. They also highlight the need to promote gender equality beyond the borders of each country in the new constitution and to establish strict “enforcement measures,” if the goal of the European Union is to keep its promises.

Regarding effectiveness, many demographic data show that if employment rates remain unchanged, then in the next ten to twenty years, the majority of the potential labor market workforce will be women. Thus, the problem, given the current situation, is not so much attracting women to the labor market, but rather effectively utilizing what they have to offer and maintaining their numbers. The performance of girls and young women in education does not align with the opportunities available to them in the labor market. The study by the Committee on Equal Opportunities, which I mentioned, shows that wage discrimination occurs already upon entry into the labor market, while the latest OECD report emphasizes the need to improve the quality of women’s job positions.

Thrid reason: The European Union is a political structure built on “feminine” values, such as the use of negotiation and cooperation, in contrast to the power of weapons and bombs. This perception was shaped, as Jean Monnet defined, to provide something that would counterbalance the abhorrent excess of brute violence. Some of the duties that traditionally constituted the destiny of women were to seek solidarity through a network of mutual interests, both of individuals and families or nations; achieving consensus through negotiations, as well as fulfilling the duties of a caregiver or nurse in times of war (e.g., offering support and reconstruction). These tasks, as traditional, are considered natural. It is also believed that they require no effort or dedication and that they do not deserve recognition in the broader market. The European Union turned this perception into a successful formula and created attractive terms for maintaining peace. However, when it comes to times of war, the European Union is considered weak, and even its own citizens and powerful members criticize it, arguing that it lacks the characteristics of male strength.

No one disputes the need to organize a strong Common Security and Defence Policy, but the European Union’s consistency with its very nature dictates the empowerment of the status of feminine values. For example, this could mean demonstrating in practice that a change in mindset is taking place. Practically, this could involve the selection of an equal ratio of men and women at the “helm,” thereby clearly showing how important the “feminine means” are that the European Union uses to establish peace. Integrating the right to gender equality in a firm and visible way into the core values of the European Union is an essential complementary element. This is a task for the 88 men and 17 women who are drafting the Constitution of the European Union.

How can gender equality be at the heart of Europe’s future?

Convincing those in decision-making centers that demands for gender equality are not requests from specific groups of citizens, but rather that they can benefit society as a whole.πολιτών, αλλά αντίθετα είναι δυνατό να ωφελήσουν όλη την κοινωνία.

Also, by modernizing the demands of women regarding the future of Europe:

• Ø First, from Treaty to Treaty, there have been leaps towards the steady improvement of the legal framework concerning gender equality. From the provision for “equal pay for equal work” in the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Amsterdam, including the recently revised directive on equal treatment in employment, various means, practices, and legislative texts have gradually marked progress in understanding gender-based discrimination and the ways to address it. This “acquired” progress must be fully integrated into the new Constitution.
• Ø Second, we already see that the ground provided by the legal framework is particularly limited and does not allow for answers to be given to particularly important issues on the global and European stage, such as, for example, violence against women.
• Ø Third, the integration of the gender equality dimension into every policy (gender mainstreaming) has proven to be an effective tool for promoting equality in a framework where there is already a sufficient number of women in decision-making positions. However, our approach must have two aspects in order to carry out more positive actions. Only if this comprehensive framework is incorporated and made visible in the new Constitution can we guarantee progress and avoid any intentional or unintentional setbacks. Within this current, highly complex web of conflicting interests and issues, which the Assembly is shaping into a unified text, it is essential to exercise particular caution regarding the impact that each proposal may have on gender equality. Most importantly, those tasked with studying and raising alarms to those who decide on future opportunities and possibilities must be especially attentive.

I would like to conclude by saying that my belief is becoming increasingly stronger that politicians can no longer effectively address the complex issues raised by the friends of Europe without the insight and analytical power that academics possess. I truly hope that we will have the opportunity to continue today’s Jean Monnet dialogue beyond the framework of this meeting, as it is essential to continuously renew our knowledge of the changing circumstances and to sharpen the edge of our arguments. And this is the next question I would like to ask you, dear Vivian: how, in other words, can we put into operation an “academic mechanism for monitoring European developments in gender policy,” so that it guides our actions as politicians?

The above is an absolute truth in the field of gender equality, where we are constantly faced with the following paradox: we are dealing with an issue that causes countless changes (the results of the shifting roles of men and women in people’s lives over the past fifty years can only be compared to those brought about by the recent invasion of modern forms of technology) in an extremely stagnant intellectual framework, which is plagued by a “common sense syndrome.”

Do you remember how John Stuart Mill described the “common sense syndrome” in his essay on the position of women in subordinate roles? One can identify this syndrome in situations where it is necessary to use a disproportionate number of arguments, both in terms of quantity and substance, in order to logically argue and counter a vague and all-powerful perception that says, “It has always been this way, why should things change now?” The modern version of this perception is that “since equality already exists, why should anyone fight for it?” In other words, the perception that inequality and discrimination are not a collective problem, but rather, are related to an individual’s personal ability or inability to deal with such situations.

The weakening of the role of women was long seen as something that suited us: the conduct of wars was the work of men, and women were forced to comply with their outcomes. For many reasons, which I have outlined above, this particular attitude undermines the essence of the European Union.

Europe now more than ever must make full use of the power, trust, and absolute participation of half of its population. This is crucial not only for the continuation of the European project, but also for the voice of Europe to be heard loudly and clearly in a turbulent world.