DEPARTMENT FOR LABOR& SOCIAL POLICY Reports on Women’s Studies GENDER IN RELATION Ideas for Gender Mainstreaming Processes Dr. Barbara Stiegler

mìÄäáëÜÉÇ=ÄóW=== lêáÖáå~ä=bÇáíáçåW== qê~åëä~íáçå=Ñêçã=dÉêã~å: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Department for Asia and the Pacific International Cooperation Godesberger Allee 149 53175 Bonn Center for Economic and Social Policy Research LABOR& SOCIAL POLICY DEPARTMENT Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung 53170 Bonn, Germany Dr. Kevin Sullivan mìÄäáëÜÉÇ=lÅíçÄÉê=OMMR= 2

Contents Introduction............................................................................................................... 4 1 What is Gender? Deconstructive Approaches................................................. 5 1.1 Critique of Biologism: Gender can be defined only on the basis of certain dimensions.......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Different dimensions of gender can be interpreted differently.............................. 8 1.3 Gender is also a characteristic of structures........................................................ 11 1.4 Gender relations are also related to groups of the same gender: Women to women, men to men........................................................................ 13 2 How Gender Perceptions Determine Structures and Strategies.................. 14 2.1 Example: Family and gender perceptions............................................................ 14 2.2 Example: Strategies to counter the sexual division of the labor market................ 18 3 Gender Objectives........................................................................................... 20 4 Gender Policy Strategies: Anti-discrimination Policy, Managing Diversity or Gender Mainstreaming – The Current Debate........................................................... 24 4.2 Managing Diversity or Gender Mainstreaming?.......................................... 25 3

Introduction Increasingly, organizations, institutions and government administrations have been involved with gender mainstreaming strategies(see Döge, Stiegler 2004). The first rigorous research project at national level of gender mainstreaming measures was recently completed(Wissensnetz 2004) and the instruments developed in the project are being tested in practice. In addition, the Gender Competence Center provides implementation support. The cabinets of all state governments in Germany have resolved to apply gender mainstreaming as a new method in government administration. The democratic bodies in many municipalities have passed similar resolutions. In June 2004, the German Council of Municipalities recommended“the promotion of gender mainstreaming considerations in all relevant municipal decisions through the planned introduction of a method for the systematic analysis of outcomes (Deutscher Städtetag 2004). Most labor unions have at least one“gender project”. Gender mainstreaming is anchored in the statutes of the labor union ver.di and implemented both formally and in terms of personnel at all levels of the organization. Civic organizations have also begun to apply the strategy. Social groups, churches, educational organizations and youth organizations have made the appropriate resolutions and are either preparing their implementation or in the implementation process(see Weg 2004). The number of gender trainers is growing and quality criteria for gender training and counsel are under discussion in gender mainstreaming networks (Netzwerk Gender Training 2004). A closer look at the implementation process reveals contradictory developments: the measures go from paying mere lip-service to gender mainstreaming while maintaining the customary rejection of gender policy, to assigning responsibility for gender mainstreaming to the“girls”, to earnest attempts and initial positive results. In many cases, gender mainstreaming exhausts itself in the compilation of statistics, following check lists or filling out questionnaires. This trivialization of gender mainstreaming as a mere formality can be interpreted as resistance to and fending off of the challenges posed by gender analyses and the resulting changes to work routines. Actually, such resistance should come as no surprise, for gender mainstreaming is aimed at a very basic transformation of organizations and requires a long-term and continuous process of analysis and innovation. The current reconstruction of the welfare state and its economic and social repercussions hamper the implementation of gender mainstreaming, because gender matters are seen from a mainstream perspective as side issues and not as solutions to social problems. A lack of understanding for and knowledge about gender relations can also pose a hindrance to gender mainstreaming processes. The mere definition of objectives for gender mainstreaming activities often poses an intractable problem once the objectives go beyond general concepts such as equality and equal opportunity. Gender mainstreaming can succeed only when all actors involved in gender processes have a thorough knowledge of gender relations and understand gender as a constitutive category for the social relations with which they are dealing. The following report is intended to provide suggestions for this basic work. It focuses on four problems inherent to work in gender mainstreaming processes. 1. Chapter 1 is concerned with the question,“What is gender?” It describes the dimensions of gender and compares traditional gender concepts with alternative concepts of gender. 4

2. In Chapter 2, the family and the labor market are used to show that gender is not only a category for the description of individuals but is also a constitutive attribute of social structures and political strategies. 3. Gender policy objectives based on alternative concepts of gender are defined in Chapter 3. 4. Chapter 4 continues the debate over different gender policy strategies, and assesses the reach of anti-discrimination strategies, gender mainstreaming and approaches to managing diversity. 1 What is Gender? Deconstructive Approaches Gender mainstreaming is often viewed as a method for evaluating the effects of measures on men and women. The evaluation starts by compiling statistics differentiated according to male and female. However, this“counting” according to biological sex is only the first step. The next step is the interpretation of this data using gender analyses that define the research issue on the basis of the current state of knowledge in women’s, men’s and gender research. This includes the results of gender theory, because they are an aid in revealing personal presuppositions that are often not discussed in the interpretation of results and thus opening them to discussion. For example, the goal“gender equality” could be interpreted to mean granting each male and female what is rightfully theirs. The gender policy objective would then be to allow men to realize their masculinity and women their femininity. It would aim at ensuring equity for two different genders on the basis of their differences. Many differences between the biological sexes are maintained and many mechanisms left intact, simply because they correspond to personal assumptions about gender and differences between the genders. The question,“What is gender?” is enough to alienate many people. Nothing seems more certain than the fact that each individual has a gender and that there are men and women. The common concept of gender is based on concepts that are questioned to its core by recent gender theory and empirical studies. Stiegler 2002, pp. 17 – 23). 1.1 Critique of Biologism: Gender can be defined only on the basis of certain dimensions The assumption that gender is a purely biological fact of human existence and falls into one of two groups is very common. In its“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World”, the Catholic Church states that differences between men and women are anthropological constants. “Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological and ontological complementarity.”(II,8.) Thus, gender differences appear as part of one’s anatomy and are thus immutable and natural. The biologic approach to the human anatomy, or, as in the letter of the Catholic Church, the biblical texts on creation, in which God created man and woman, are the foundation for these basic assumptions. Recent popular science books about the differences between the genders are based on such assumptions and have become best sellers(e.g. Allen and Barbara Pease, 2000). 5

Typically, they trace differences in the thought and behavior of men and women to anatomical differences on the basis of supposedly scientific assumptions. Brain size and structure, hormones and muscles are measured and offered as a natural explanation for differences between the biological sexes(see Frey 2002 for a critique). The concept of gender is one in which body and behavior, body and ability as well as body and social “role” are fused together. Men are like they are and cannot be otherwise due to anatomical characteristics and women are like they are and cannot be otherwise due to their anatomical characteristics. Approaches such as these are termed“biologistic” in gender theory discussions, because they use biology as the basis for all statements about humans. A number of findings from history, comparative anthropology and sociology question the approach of popular biologism to gender. 1.The empirical diversity of life and the manifestations of women and men • in different cultures, • in different epochs of a culture and • in different milieus within a culture reveal that there is no single, historically permanent definition of life and the manifestations of gender. 2.The pure nature of gender can not be pinpointed, because the border between “pure” nature and the results of social influences can not be defined. Social influences are always present. There is no laboratory situation in which pure human nature can develop. 3.Basing the“naturalness” of human behavior on the argument that analogous behavior can be observed in animals is circular reasoning. The interpretation of observed animal behavior in analogy to human behavior is based on the presupposition that similarities can be found, and this pre-supposition determines the selection and interpretation of the behavior of animals. A first crucial step in the gender policy debate was to distinguish between biological sex and gender(Nicholson 1994). Biological sex is defined as the biologically determined features of the body while gender is defined as individual behavior in the context of socially defined rules, expectations and positions as they have developed through history. These definitions make a clear distinction between body and behavior, body and ability, and body and social position. They don’t allow for the ascription of behavior, ability or social position to sexually determined features of the human body. Deconstructive approaches go even one step further in gender research. They view the totality of the sexual body(biological sex) as a historical, social and cultural construction (Butler 1991). Donna Haraway(1995), a biologist, holds her science to be a branch of political discourse and not as a reference book to objective truth. From her perspective, the claim that the tangible differences between the biological sexes result from biological givens is a political position and not a general truth. Deconstructive theories argue that nature neither knows nor creates categories. Categories(such as male and female) are products of culture and provide a structure for experience. The existence of biological facts is not negated, but their cultural interpretation and meaning are placed in the foreground. This approach challenges all differences between the sexes that are based on so-called biological facts. 6

Deconstructive approaches to gender do not assert that the all individuals have a free “choice” of gender or that each individual is free to decide which gender it would like to have and live. Rather, it analyzes precisely how human action and behavior transforms anatomical differences that are seen as sexual into social reality. Daily interactions(“doing gender”) as well as gender related structures in education, the educational system and in the organization of work play an important role by challenging and shaping individual practice. It is under these conditions that individuals are assigned a gender and gendering patterns reinforced. Recent debate over gender theory has produced an additional dimension of gender in addition to“sex” and“gender”:“desire”. This dimension encompasses sexual desire and sexual activity. If sexual desire is conceived of as an independent dimension and equivalent determinant of gender, neither anatomical features(biological sex) nor social life as a man or woman(gender) determine gender. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are thus forms of sexual desire with effects on gender that are independent of the other determinants. This reveals that simple definitions such as“that is a man” or “that is a woman” are related solely to physical characteristics(biological sex) that represent only one facet of gender determination. The various dimensions of gender are shown in the following overview: Dimensions of Gender Sex ~ë=ÄáçäçÖáÅ~ääó=ÇÉÑáåÉÇ=ÑÉ~íìêÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÄçÇó Desire = ~ë=ëÉñì~ä=ÇÉëáêÉI=ëÉñì~ä=~ÅíáîáíáÉë dÉåÇÉê ÇÉëÅêáÄÉë=áåÇáîáÇì~ä=éê~ÅíáÅÉ=~ë=çééçëÉÇ=íç=ëçÅá~ääó=ÇÉÑáåÉÇ= êìäÉë=Ñçê=ÑÉã~äÉë=~åÇ=ã~äÉëX= ÉñéÉÅí~íáçåë=çå=ïçãÉå=~åÇ=ãÉåX= éçëáíáçåë=Ñçê=ïçãÉå=~åÇ=ãÉåX= áÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=éçëëáÄáäáíáÉë=Ñçê=ïçãÉå=~åÇ=ãÉåI ÇÉëÅêáÄÉë=íÜÉ=êÉä~íáçåë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÖÉåÇÉêë= ~åÇ=íÜÉ=é~ííÉêåë=Ñçê=íÜÉáê=Åçåíêçä= ~ë=ïÉää=~ë=íÜÉ=áåëíáíìíáçå~äáò~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉëÉ=êìäÉë=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ëíêìÅíìêÉ= çÑ=ëçÅá~ä=éê~ÅíáÅÉ=áå=çêÖ~åáò~íáçåë= The observed differences between male and females that form the basis of gender analyses often arise from the elementary distinction according to anatomical features (biological sex). However, they can not be ascribed to biological sex. Simple explanations such as“that’s the way women are; men are just different” are inadequate. Rather, differences observed on the basis of anatomical features(biological sex) must be interpreted as the result of a certain“gender”. Gender denotes those aspects of biological sex that are considered to be a social, societal and cultural construction. Gender has two sides: On the one hand, it refers to the social gender of an individual that reflects the cultural and social mechanisms to which an individual is subject according to his/her categorization on the basis of biological sex. On the other, gender refers to the gender-specific rules and mechanisms in institutions that are usually not 7

recognized as gender-specific but which serve indirectly as determinants of gender(see Chapter 1.3). Gender always works in combination with other determinants of social inequality. It adds a dimension to groups that are defined according to age, social class and environment, ethnicity or health. There is in each of these groups an additional excluding factor, restriction or hurdle based on gender that affects mostly women and represents a privilege for men. An Example A white(ethnicity), 30 year old(age) woman from the middle class(social status) is the mother(biological sex) of a small child and lives in a lesbian relation(desire). As member of the management team of a medium-sized company she has difficulties meeting the duties and demands of her job requirements in terms of availability and mobility. This is due to the fact that the job is designed for persons that are not responsible for the care and upbringing of small children(gender aspect of the organization). She must forego promotion to a better position, because she shares responsibility for childcare with her partner(gender aspect of the individuals). 1.2 Different dimensions of gender can be interpreted differently Heeding the three dimensions of gender is not enough to define the actual meanings of gender. The dimensions provide only a perspective and no substance. In order to provide content, two different perspectives are distinguished below: the traditional and the alternative perspective. From the traditional perspective these three dimensions are seen as • dual: there are only two sexes, • polar: male is the opposite of female, • hierarchical: male is superior to female, and thus lead to the following assumptions about gender: Dimensionso Gender Traditional gender concepts dual polar hierarchical gender Behavior, ability and position are denoted as male or female Typically male is precisely what is not typically female Masculinity is the standard measure and female the deviation from this norm desire Men can desire only women and women desire only men. The opposites of gender attract each other. Men are allowed to dispose over female sexuality. sex There are male and female Masculine features are Masculine features are anatomical features that the opposite of female the norm and female distinguish men from women. features. features an aberration. 8

Dual concepts of gender Gender stereotypes refer to the two biological sexes and only to these two. There is only male and female behavior, ability, characteristics and positions. Polar concepts of gender That which is typically male is the exact opposite of what is typically female. Men are seen as rational, strong and action-oriented while women are seen as emotional, weak and relation-oriented. Hierarchical concepts of gender Typical male characteristics are the norm while female is not a separate category but an aberration That which is characterized as male is superior to that which is characterized as female. Male virtues and characteristics have a greater social value than their female counterparts. Dual concepts of desire Men can desire only women and women only men. Homosexuality is unnatural. Polar concepts of desire A man’s desire of a woman and a woman’s desire of a man are based on the opposite nature of the biological sexes. The attract each other and seek their complement. Hierarchical concepts of desire Male sexuality is seen as libidinal and dominant; it is the basis for the right to possess woman sexually. Men are allowed to dispose over female sexuality. Dual concepts of sex All anatomical features can be categorized as either male or female. Morphology, chromosomes, glands, hormones and the brain are either male or female. Polar concepts of Sex Masculine bodies are large, powerful and broad; female bodies are smaller, weak and slim. Those features of men that are described as extroverted are described as introverted for women. Hierarchical concepts of Sex Anatomical features that are defined as masculine are seen as the standard while female characteristics are considered to be a deficiency or a lack of masculinity. Masculine is the norm and female the aberration. 9

Possible alternative concepts of gender center on the dimensions of gender, desire and sex. • multifaceted: there are more than two genders • complex: masculinity can pervade femininity and vice versa. • egalitarian: there is no superiority or subordination. These views lead to the following assumptions about gender: Dimensions of Gender gender desire sex Possible alternative concepts of gender multifaceted instead of dual complex instead of polar egalitarian instead of hierarchical There are behavioral patterns and capabilities as well as social positions beyond the male and female roles. Every social position has male and female elements. Masculinity has the same social value as femininity. Interpersonal desire is independent of biological sex. Desire can change during the course of life. Bisexuality is normal. Interpersonal desire is acceptable regardless of the sexes involved. Every person has masculine as well as feminine bodily features. Hermaphrodites and transsexuality are normal forms of gender. Masculine and Masculine and feminine features act feminine features together. are equally important. Multifaceted concepts of gender In addition to male and female roles there are roles that define gender. Berdaches, hijras, women with a man’s heart and xaniths are gender roles in other societies and represent a third or fourth gender(see Lorber 1999). Social positions, e.g. professions, do have a masculine or feminine connotation. Complex concepts of gender This perspective focuses on individual social positions and allows for both masculine and feminine components. For example, this approach identifies the social abilities that belong to the professional role of the technician and the physical strength that is needed in the professional role of nurses for the elderly. 10

Egalitarian concepts of gender “Masculine” principles, behavior and characteristics are equal to those with a “feminine” connotation. The emphasis of autonomy, status and social prestige, for example, is just as important as a set of guiding principles for individuals as an emphasis on social relations, interdependency and cooperation. Multifaceted concepts of desire Desire between persons is independent of gender; homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality or bisexuality. Complex concepts of desire Desire can be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual In the course of life or change throughout a person’s life. Egalitarian concepts of desire Desire is accepted independent of gender. Heterosexuality is not the dominant norm. Multifaceted concepts of sex Every individual combines masculine and feminine characteristics of sexuality. Morphology, chromosomal sex, genital sex, hormonal sex and the biological sex of the brain structure are different determinants that can have different manifestations. Hermaphrodites, intersexuals and transsexuals are considered as normal forms gender. Complex concepts of sex In every person, the anatomical features determined by gender have a combined effect and can change over time. Egalitarian concepts of sex Masculine and feminine features are considered equal and their gender classification has no implications on dominance or subordination. 1.3 Gender is also a characteristic of structures Gender serves not only as a characteristic of individuals. Women’s, Men’s and Gender studies focus not only on the subject, but also on the norms, institutions, and social rules and mechanisms that they create. The analysis focuses on the effects of gender concepts on social structure. The issue is how social systems can always re-produce gender differences, how exclusivity and exclusion processes based on gender variables work and how real inequality between men and women is generated. A particularly effective mechanism is the denial of the relevance of gender. Feminist political scientists are working to provide proof of the androcentrism of the current theories of politics and the state and to decipher government institutions and policies as supposedly gender neutral(Kreisky, Sauer 1995). However, the labor market, the educational system, the economy as well as other social systems have gender-related features(Gottschall 1998). The power of symbolic orders that contain gender models is particularly evident in the mass media(Werner 2004). 11

Gender specific norms, strategies and structures are also to be found in organizations. Organizational Principles of Gendering Organizational Principles with a Masculine Connotation Organizational Principles with a Feminine Connotation Personal Models(behavior, attitudes etc.) • Emphasis on autonomy, status and social prestige • Emphasis on competitiveness and struggle • One-dimensional focus on profession • Focus on vertical advancement • Logic, reason, technical rationale and measurable facts count most in decisionmaking situations • Emphasis on social relations and interdependence, cooperation and compromise in team structures • Balance between professional and private spheres as a success factor • Focus on horizontal advancement • In addition to reason and facts, intuition, emotion and sympathy are important in decision-making situations Models for Interaction • Status orientation(authority) • Relationship orientation(participation) • Emphasis on autonomy • Agreement on the exchange and development • Reasoning and arguments for one’s own of common positions(consensus orientation) objective are convincing(dissent orientation) • Winner-winner rhetoric • Winner-loser rhetoric • Goal: Achieve integrative solutions • Goal: assertion of personal goals • Conflict and dissent provide opportunities for • The risk potential of conflict and dissent tends positive change to be suppressed • Observe rules but always adapt to changing • Assert and abide by rules conditions Models for Organization and Leadership • Symbols/ metaphors: Pyramids, ladders, chains, staff, department • Leadership through the authority of a chosen elite: o Focus on command, obedience and defined objectives o Strategic thinking is the job of managers; execution the tasks of subalterns o Power and influence are determined by status, the position in a hierarchy, formal controls, coercion, fear, manipulation and mistrust o Management qualifications are based on formal credentials, e.g. certificates (diplomas, craftsman’s degree, PhD, habilitation etc.) • Focus: hierarchy, autonomy, individualism, rivalry, competition, conformity, order and obedience, aggression, professional success (career),“hard play” From: Mark Maier:“On the gendered substructure of • Symbols/ metaphors: networks, circles, community, gardens, team • Leadership as the“first among equals” o Cooperation and consensus with respect to common goals and visions o No distinction between strategic thinking and action o Leader as coach, moderator; process monitoring and support o Enable others to attain common goals o Power and influence through earned competence, knowledge, experience, communication, reflection and empathy o Focus: Esteem, respect, trust, empowerment • Focus: equality, community, cooperation, diversity, partnership, participation, success in life, relation-oriented, caring culture, fair play organization – dimensions and dilemmas of corporate masculinity” in: Gary N. Powell(ed.)“Handbook of gender and work”, SAGE 1999(table based on Ralf Lange) 12

Gender is thus also a construction of social practice(Connell 1999). Institutions are structured according to gender not only in the sense that they are shaped by the personalities of men in leading management positions, but in the sense that hiring and promotion, the internal division of labor and control systems are organized on the basis of gender. “Doing gender” in organizations is evidenced in • the design of workplaces(legwork and assistance are seen as feminine, professionalism and management as masculine), • the time requirements(full-time work with overtime is seen as masculine, part-time work in the mornings as feminine), • the mobility requirements(business trips and sales are seen as masculine, local ties as feminine). Such practices create and reinforce gender differences. 1.4 Gender relations are also related to groups of the same gender: Women to women, men to men Women’s studies and recent men’s studies focus on an additional aspect: the relation of various groups of the same sex. From this perspective, the relationship of gender with other criteria of social differentiation such as ethnicity, age and social origin are relevant. Globalization studies reveal that there are winners and losers and that the positions are interdependent(Wichterich 2003). Thiessen’s work(2003) is another example for research of gender relations among women. Her analysis focuses on the relationship between middle class German women and the women from Eastern Europe whom they employ to clean their private homes. Connel(1999) analyzes different forms of masculinity. His concept of“hegemonial masculinity” is just one of many forms of masculinity. Hegemonial masculinity, for example, not only excludes men with a homosexual orientation, but despises them even to the point of physical violence. Hegemony, subordination, complicity and marginalization are analyzed as characteristics of the relationship between different forms of masculinity. Men of different social milieus, social backgrounds, ages and sexual orientation also have different concepts of masculinity and different social practices that must be detected(Meuser 2004). This approach is very fruitful for gender policy, because it allows for alliances between men and women that are not based on a specific gender but on the common negative experience of hegemonial masculinity and the conviction, that there are desirable alternatives to it. 13

2. How Gender Perceptions Determine Structures and Strategies 2.1 Example: Family and gender perceptions The various perceptions of gender – also called“gender constructions” in the academic discussion – have relevant effects on views of the family. The following overviews show the gender constructions on which different views of the family are based. Dimensions of Gender gender desire sex Views of the family according to traditional gender constructions dual polar hierarchical The family comprises one provider and a caring mother. Family is the female counter-realm to the male realm; it is a place to recuperate from the stress of the outside world. The man is the head of the family, the provider role of the man is the basis of the family. The family is based on The man desires. The the desire of a man for woman receives. one woman for the rest of their lives. The desire of a man is natural and a woman must subjugate herself to it Sexual violence in the family is considered a private problem. The physical functions of siring(fatherhood) and bearing (motherhood) are constitutive for the family. The family unites the contrary physical functions of male and female to produce a child. The physical function of“birthing” is ground for dependence, the physical functions of “siring” is not. 14

Using the alternatives for the determination of gender(see Chapter 2.1), completely different descriptions of the family are possible. Dimensions of Gender gender desire sex Views of the family according to traditional gender constructions multifaceted instead of dual complex instead of polar egalitarian instead of hierarchical Each person has a range of opportunities for combining private “caring” with “gainful” employment. Assuming responsibility in the family means assuming responsibility for society. Private caring is valued just as highly as“gainful” employment. Financial or emotional dependence is not determined by the form of labor. Every family member can be bisexual or (during certain phases) homosexual. Same-sex unions and parenthood are normal and represent a family. The quality of a relationship is decisive. No double standards. Biologically determined sexual characteristics play no role for pairing. Physical functions such as fathering and giving birth are just as important as fatherhood and motherhood. Biological functions such as fathering and giving birth place equal demands based on parenthood. The question is then,“Which of the two views of the family based on a different gender construction coincide best with reality?” How do people really live in Germany? In a literature analysis on the transformation of the family, Maihofer and others(2001) describe the following trends in the family as they are actually experienced: These reveal a disassociation of • sexuality and procreation, • love and marriage, • marriage and parenthood, • biological parenthood and social parenthood, and instead of • voluntary relationships take the place of blood relations as the primary social context. 15

The many forms of the family in addition to the traditional small family, such as • dual career families, • illegitimate cohabitation, • single mothers and fathers, • patchwork families, • same-sex partners, • and rainbow families are evidence of these trends. The traditional breadwinner family in which the private sphere is left to the female and the money-earning to the male clearly corresponds to the traditional concepts of gender. Gender roles are clearly differentiated. The heterosexual man marries a heterosexual woman, they become married partners and their biological offspring are cared for by the mother in the nuclear family. There is a female realm of privacy and a male realm of gainful employment. Private care is unpaid labor and those who perform it, usually the mother, is dependent on the financial support of the provider. Many welfare services are related directly to gainful employment but only indirectly to labor performed in private care. Due to its economic status, women who provide private care are dependent on their husbands, even if this does not become evident until a conflict arises. All other forms of family life transcend at one or the other dimension of the traditional concept of sex: Dual career families transcend the division of labor into a provider role and a career role, because both genders have equivalent roles as providers. It remains open in this type of family who performs the housework and who takes care of any children. The high percentage(approximately 40%) of well-educated women – and their partners – who choose not to have children, also indicates that the present social conditions are such that the requirements of being a mother or father are becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with the requirements for participation in the labor force. If a couple in which both partners are fully employed wishes to have children, it must delegate private care to others(nursery, nanny, grandparents). This increases the complexity of the family and creates more interfaces with the world beyond the family. Recent studies of the division of labor in the family indicate that it is like“paddling against the stream” to ensure that the responsibility for private care is divided equally between partners(Rühling et al 2004). Gender is experienced as more variegated, complex and egalitarian, especially in respect to the division of labor. Domestic partnerships can occur in different phases of life. As a pre-form of marriage and chance for testing a relationship, this form provides young people with an opportunity to go beyond traditional gender roles: joint responsibility for subsistence, and in many cases their own domicile in which they have a chance to agree on a division of labor. People who live in such a long-term relationship, including those with children, renounce legal marriage and fear that tax laws and social policy will force them to conform to traditional concepts of gender roles. Many young people would rather forego financial incentives than commit themselves to the traditional form of marriage. Children in domestic partnerships are usually the offspring of one of the two partners. 16

Domestic partnerships at retirement age, on the other hand, often result from financial factors that are defined by the traditional concept of marriage. Many elderly persons choose this form of partnership in order to avoid losing claim to the benefits of pension schemes. Desire is not seen as the life long desire of a man for a woman or vice versa, biological sex is not the sole decisive factor and social parenthood is possible. Gender is experienced as more variegated, complex and egalitarian, especially with respect to the division of labor. Single mothers(and fathers) also transcend the traditional gender roles, because they are both providers and careers, even when absent fathers(or mothers) are required to provide child support. There are many reasons for this type of living arrangement, including the mother’s rejection of the traditional masculine role of the partner and father and her desire to protect herself from male violence. Mothers leaving the traditional role of the mother and choosing a new partner can also result in a situation in which fathers are solely responsible for raising their children. Desire is not seen as a life-long relationship between a man and a woman; single fathers experience different facets of gender when they are responsible for the upbringing of their children. Patchwork families comprise people who originally lived in different nuclear families and who have created a family system following separations and new partnerships. There is little information on how gender roles are experienced in these families. However, the many relationships among its members provide the children with a range of different role models that differ from the traditional gender roles in their unambiguousness and uniformity. Desire is not seen as the life-long heterosexual tie of a man to a woman but is instead experienced as more diverse. The biological function of procreation and bearing children are not constitutive elements of a family. Homosexual partnerships are present at every age and in all social classes. Recent laws have provided them with a solid legal foundation even though they do not grant them the same material basis as legal marriage. Homosexual relations are also alternative with respect to biological sex: the physical functions of procreation and bearing children are not constitutive for such relationships. They are also alternative with respect to desire: a homosexual relationship is the basis of cohabitation. Rainbow families are the most apparent departure from the traditional concept of the family: same-sex partners with children. The children are typically from an earlier relationship of one of the partners but can also be the“planned” children of women in same sex partnerships. Pairs are not based on biological sex and the division of labor does not depend on sex. The focus is on the quality of a relationship. Children in these families live with a variety of role models that are not determined by gender but by individual strengths and weaknesses. This family is an alternative to the traditional family with respect to gender, sex and desire. 17

2.2 Example: Strategies to counter the sexual division of the labor market Gender policy strategies can also be analyzed using the concepts listed in the tables above. In this context it is particularly important to analyze whether all three factors of gender relations(duality, polarity and hierarchy) are reduced to an equal extent. Strategies such as the advancement of women and ensuring women’s representation and participation are aimed at changing the hierarchy between the genders and do not have effects on duality and polarity. However, in order to attain a real and lasting change in hierarchy, strategies must also question duality and polarity and be capable of changing them. Attempts to break down the hierarchy between men and women can be successful only when gender policy strategies • dispel the strict demarcation between male and female and thus begin to overcome duality, • erase the contouring of male and female as opposites and contradictory and thus begin to overcome polarization. Duality and polarity are the pillars that support and stabilize hierarchy. The following analysis of strategies against gender-based segregation in the labor market serves to provide examples of such an approach. All are aimed at ensuring equality among men and women by reducing segregation, the separation of the labor market into sectors and professions for men and women. In order to reach equality objectives and uphold them over time, it is clear that hierarchies as well as duality and polarity must be dismantled. The hierarchy between the sectors and professions for men and women are evidenced in their different social status, pay and structure. The sectors and professions for women are worse off than the sectors and professions for men. The gender specific placement in these professions occurs on the basis of the aptitudes that are generally assumed and sometimes mediated in socialization processes. Thus, women who work in these sectors or in“female” professions have less social recognition, lower pay and are confronted by professional structures that hamper promotion and advancement. The sectors for man and the structures of male professions, on the other hand, are more highly acknowledged, associated with higher pay and offer opportunities for promotion and advancement(Krüger 2003). Aptitude for professional work is very gender-specific and is based on dual and polar gender models. Aptitude for technical work has a male connotation; aptitude for social work a female connotation. This assumes that these two types of aptitude exist and that they are mutually exclusive. Individuals therefore are assumed to have a certain aptitude on the basis of their gender and which members of the other gender lack. Aptitude is thus construed as dual(technical or social) and polar(technical aptitude excludes social aptitude and vice versa). At the same time, occupational training is also subject to a “gendering” that corresponds to the traditional dual and polar concepts of the competences of the genders It is assumed that male occupations have no requirements with a female connotation and that female occupations have no requirements with a male connotation. Even job evaluation systems show how deeply rooted these concepts are. They systematically disregard requirements such as physical strength in the nursing professions and social skills in technical professions. Gender policy strategies that counter the division into sectors for men and women and into male and female occupations can now be analyzed to determine those factors in gender relations which they affect. 18

1.“Women in Men’s Occupations” Strategy Gender equality can be aimed at in all sectors and occupational positions. The promotion of women in men’s occupations and the promotion of men in women’s professions is the gender policy strategy. The advancement of women through the definition of a female quota is part of this strategy. If this strategy was successful, the good and bad conditions in the labor market would at least not be distributed according to gender. Men working in nursing professions would then earn less and women with technical professions would be relatively better off. This gender policy strategy aims solely at individuals and the gender-related barriers that they face. In reality, the promotion of women in male occupations occurs only to a modest extent and the necessary complement of promoting men in female occupations is almost completely lacking, at least in Germany; the Scandinavian countries are a bit more advanced in this respect. The German labor market is characterized by an abridged form of a program for the“advancement of women” that can only go half way, because it looks only at one side of the relation between the genders. The promotion of men in poorly paid women’s occupations is not even an objective. The reasons for the failure of an egalitarian distribution of occupation are also due to the fact that the traditional provider model does not allow for men assuming positions in poorly paid occupations and that the male model is much more resistant than the female model to a transformation involving characteristics with connotations of the “other sex”. 2.“Enhancement of Women’s Occupations” Strategy Another gender policy strategy is aimed at enhancing women’s occupations and sectors. This includes abolishing the discriminatory structures in women’s occupations and putting women’s occupations at the same level as men’s occupations. This is intended to provide women in these occupations with the same recognition, pay and advancement structures as those typical of men’s occupations. This strategy leaves gender-related hiring practices unchanged and aims instead at adjusting the structures and appraisement of female occupations to correspond to those in male occupations. This strategy aims at abolishing the hierarchy between occupations by putting female occupations at the same level as male occupations. The goal is attained when both are at the same level. Although this strategy considers gendering in the organization of occupations, it is recognized only as a form of discrimination, thus making the strategy deficient in another respect: such anti-discrimination strategies do not try to change gender-specific connotations but only to improve the conditions for women in female occupations while upholding duality and opposition. Socialization based on gender models and gender-specific aptitude is left unquestioned. Thus, the strategy is critical of the hierarchy between the“technical” and the“social” but accepts the ascription of each area to one of the genders. Occupational reform is then an issue for women in female occupations. Men feel neither concerned nor affected and often fear that an increase in women’s wages are made at their expense, for example, when labor negotiations are concerned with the distribution of a fixed budget. 19

3.“Degendering of Occupations through Professionalization” Strategy This gender policy strategy examines the separation of occupations and job areas that reflect the duality and polarity of gender models as well as the lower status and lacking professionalization of requirements with a female connotation(Krüger 2003). It analyzes the absence of professionalization structure in female occupations and the power of trade associations, the church and voluntary organizations that are responsible for the design of a training infrastructure and the number and quality of workplaces. A“degendering” of occupations would result from a basic re-definition of their requirements, assessment, pay and structure. The aim is to eradicate the gendering of occupations with respect to the requirements, work design and work conditions and to professionalize women’s occupations. The discovery of social requirements in male occupations and the technical and physical requirements in the female occupations are the first step in degendering(see Krell et.al. 2001). Such a strategy also highlights the grounds for and the legitimation of the separation of occupations into male and female: Neither the attempt to judge a person’s aptitude on the basis of their gender nor the definition of technical occupations without social skills and social occupations without technical skills are acceptable. Only the focus on the individual without consideration of gender can prevent the attribution of gender-specific skills. This strategy questions the basic assumptions on which the gender hierarchy of sectors and occupations are based, since it assumes that no woman is the same as another woman or has certain characteristics that men don’t have, and no man is the same as another man or has certain characteristics that a woman could have. The connotation of man-technologyvaluable and woman-social-inferior must be abolished. Benchmarking criteria and professionalization infrastructures should no longer follow gender-specific concepts and constructs but require a different perspective. A fundamental critique of the socalled gender-specific aptitude on which the dual and polar concepts of gender are based must also include the one-dimensionality of occupations that are considered as either technical or social and eliminate the inferiority of women’s occupations. 3. Gender Objectives The basic assumptions of gender theory guide not only strategies but also the definition of objectives. In order to identify inequalities in gender relations and to determine how they can be eliminated, it is necessary to have a clear concept of how gender relations should be. The different gender goals that aren’t based on the traditional gender concepts are discussed and compared below. 20

1. Goal: The creation of equity in gender relations: equal distribution of resources In more concrete terms, this means that men and women have access to • the same economic means and powers, • the same amount of work, paid and unpaid, • the same amount of leisure, • the same respect, • the same power, • the same amount of health, • the same knowledge, • the same amount of space. The focus here is on gender equity with respect to resources such as money, power, time and knowledge. Nancy Frasier(1997) distinguishes between“justice interruptus”, socioeconomic injustice and cultural-symbolic injustice. Socioeconomic injustice is characterized by the following: • Exploitation: the fruits of labor are appropriated by someone else. • Economic marginalization: Disagreeable and poorly paid jobs. • Deprivation: Denial of a sufficient material standard of living, poverty. If these dimensions are applied to gender relations, socioeconomic injustice can be described as follows: • Exploitation: Private housekeeping and private care are unpaid and those who perform these tasks, who are mostly women, are denied payment for their labor. • Economic marginalization: The expansion of low-paying jobs, the gender typing of branches and occupations and the low wages in female sectors and occupations as well as the individual need to shorten working hours in order to provide private unpaid labor(part-time employment) represents the economic marginalization of those who provide private care to children, the elderly and the sick, and these are usually women. • Deprivation: Single mothers in particular must depend on welfare payments that keep them at the poverty level, because there is a lack of public day-care facilities for children. The focus of social security systems on paid employment drives many women into poverty during old age. According to Fraser, cultural symbolic injustice is characterized by the following: • Subordination to interpretation patterns that are alien to one’s own culture. • Lack of recognition: Banned to invisibility by the authoritarian cultural practices of portrayal, communication and interpretation. • Disdain: regularly denigrated and belittled. If these dimensions are applied to gender relations, cultural symbolic injustice can be described as follows: 21

• Cultural dominance: androcentrism in the value systems and mechanisms of organizations. • Lack of recognition: Making women and the daily context of female life with its experiences, capabilities and work in society visible. • Disdain: Sexism in the form of sexual harassment, sexual exploitation and male violence against women. Group comparisons between men and women are first necessary to achieve gender equity in this sense. This does not only require a comparison of gender groups as defined by biological sex(physical attributes) but a comparison of gender groups in their respective social contexts; in other words, in their ethnicity, class or socioeconomic milieu, religion, their sexual orientation and, when necessary, with respect to disabilities. In many cases, the comparison will reveal that women in a group characterized by various attributes will be at a disadvantage in comparison with men in the same group. Connell(1999) calls this the patriarchal dividend, and it benefits even those men who fall into the“loser” category in the sense of hegemonial masculinity of dominant men. 2. Goal: Allow gender diversity The attainment of gender equity requires either that men are given the status of women or that women are given the status of men: however, this must always occur with respect to the command over resources. One of the most important reasons given for the inequitable distribution of resources is the reference to duality, polarity and gender hierarchy. Therefore, the second goal is to establish the equity of different forms of gender and to enable men and women to live their gender beyond biological constraints, the dictate of heterosexuality and restrictive gender norms. Analyses of hegemonial masculinity and of different types of masculinity(Connell 1999), the mother myth(Vinken 2001) and the “feminine mystique”(Friedan 1970) can contribute to a critical analysis of genderspecific concepts and constraints on life-styles and biographies. This goal aims primarily at the non-discrimination of individuals who live different forms of gender in all of its dimensions(sex, desire and gender). However, it goes beyond anti-discrimination and encompasses more than the acceptance of any given gender life-style. It also includes the design of a framework, including norms and values, that makes it possible to live such diverse life-styles. This challenges the norms of normality, because the inclusion of what has been hitherto excluded transforms“normality”. 3. Goal: Degendering This goal is not aimed at individuals or groups but at institutions, systems and cultures(Lorber 2004). As has been shown, gender is also an attribute of social systems. Schambach(2004) uses the example of the Potsdamer Platz in Berlin to demonstrate how its planning was infused with androcentric concepts with a masculine connotation(an emphasis on economic premises and the disregard of reproductive elements, emphasis on historical significance and a neglect of the social consequences of noise, air pollution and the risk of accidents). Androcentrism, i.e. the focus on a certain form of masculinity that also determines a corresponding form of femininity, must be exposed and superseded. This requires a gender analysis of institutions, their 22

normal mechanisms and routines as well as of the division of labor: Based on the one hand on an analysis that places values with a female connotation at the same level as or as a substitute for values with a male connotation and, on the other, on the transformation of gender-specific hierarchies, structures and practices. The gender doing” of regulations, routines and practices should be acknowledge and abolished(see Chapter 1.3). It may even be the case that women are wanted for management positions in private companies and public authorities. However, as long as informal networks, job design and qualification requirements and androcentric, the only women who will be hired for management positions are those who conform to male-oriented norms in their thinking and life styles. In the context, the reversal of gendering entails the analysis of role models for individuals, and models for interaction, organization and management and their integration with dimensions that have a female connotation. This results in a transformation of the whole organization and affects man as well as women. Gender Equity Allow Gender Diversity Reversing Gendering All three goals should play a role in gender mainstreaming processes, with the emphasis on each determined by the project at hand. Sustainable and long-term equity in gender relations can only be attained when the norms of normality are challenged and the institutions and structures that support them are changed. Questions on gender objectives 1. Does the project that is being analyzed exclude individuals on the basis of gender? (direct discrimination) pÉñW Does it exclude mostly men or women? aÉëáêÉW Does it exclude individuals with a certain sexual orientation? dÉåÇÉêW Does it exclude men or women of a certain age, or those with children, immigrants or handicapped persons? 2. How does the project being analyzed change the living conditions of the sexes? Does it increase equity between men and women in specific groups(see the list of groups under“gender” in question 1) or does it lead to more differences between men and women in these groups?(Access to resources) 3. Is a model with male or female connotation reinforced or is it more likely that it will be weakened? What are the consequences? 4. How can the project under analysis generate variety and complexity that corresponds to the way gender is lived? 5. Does the project under analysis break down the gender connotation of norms, behavior and mechanisms in the area at which it is aimed? 23

4. Gender Policy Strategies: Anti-discrimination Policy, Managing Diversity or Gender Mainstreaming – The Current Debate This chapter compares gender policy strategies. The analysis is based on the theoretical considerations of gender and the gender objectives developed in Chapter 3. 4.1 Anti-discrimination policy or gender mainstreaming? Gender policy can use a number of different strategies. At European level, a broad antidiscrimination policy that uses the category of gender is being followed in addition to the gender mainstreaming strategy. The new Üçêáòçåí~ä=~ééêç~ÅÜ is being discussed in the course of implementing the European guidelines on antidiscrimination. The basic principle of this approach is:“Every individual has the right to equitable treatment, regardless of whether they are a man, woman, a person with or without a disability and whether or not they belong to a minority group.”(Lockett 2004). The discrimination criteria are defined as: race or ethnic origin(Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin 200/43/EC), religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation(Council Directive for equal treatment in employment and occupation 2000/78/EC). Discrimination on the basis of biological sex was covered in earlier directives. Discrimination based on these factors is treated with a single approach on three different levels: 1. On the legal level by including a broad range of discriminatory factors in one law. One anti-discrimination policy provides the basis for legal measures against differences of treatment. The following principles are used to fight all types of discrimination through jurisprudence: • Reversal of the burden of proof(the person who was discriminated against must not produce evidence that discrimination occurred; instead, the plaintiff must provide evidence that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment), • A definition of legal status(who is entitled to file charges on discriminatory practices), • Sanctions for violations of anti-discrimination laws. 2. In the promotion of groups concerned with anti-discrimination. The European Community’s action program against discrimination provides funding to NGOs, which in the past have represented the interests of only one group that is subject to discrimination, to cooperate with organizations that focus on another form of discrimination. 3. In the creation of an anti-discrimination institution: The directive calls for the creation of an office that is responsible for monitoring its implementation in national law. The horizontal approach can give the impression that all discrimination factors are threaded like pearls in a necklace and treated equally. In the legal context, the term “gender” could be inserted in the legal definition of the list of discrimination factors. However, this does not meant that these factors are granted the same significance in social reality. Gender is seen in the debate over the horizontal approach as one 24

discrimination factor among many, which relativizes the meaning of gender policy. This overlooks the theoretical considerations of gender as a category, which have shown that gender is not only a personal characteristic but a constitutive factor in the structure of organizations and cultures(see Chapter 1). As a pattern for the genesis of social order, gender is woven into the very fabric of social relations. Government, organizational and cultural structures have an androcentric design(i.e. they are based on a specific form of masculinity). Androcentrism in social security systems, which is based on the fact that only paid labor is considered relevant, can not be seen as the discrimination of individual women. Nor is the relatively low pay and lack of professionalization in social and nursing occupations the discrimination of an individual woman on the basis of her biological sex. Rather, it is evidence of a gender structure with effects that include the wage gap between men and women. The gender-specific division of labor is also not a form of discrimination but a gender structure that allocates privileges and tasks according to biological sex. Gender policy is therefore more than anti-discrimination policy. Striving for gender equality, gender diversity or degendering(see Chapter 3) theoretical underpinnings, i.e. an understanding of what constitutes gender relations. An analysis of the determinants and conditions for discrimination based on gender is needed to define the framework for gender policy. The focus is not only on discrimination in the strict sense, which can be offset simply by acknowledging its existence. Instead, the structural causes of the apparent dissimilarity are analyzed and changed through political means. Gender mainstreaming as a strategy aimed at changing the societal conditions for the consolidation of hierarchical, dual and polar gender relations is part of a comprehensive gender policy. Anti-discrimination policy is the first step of such a policy. 4.2 Managing Diversity or Gender Mainstreaming? Diversity management is often portrayed as a more comprehensive and broader approach than gender mainstreaming, because it includes many more discrimination factors than gender mainstreaming(Döge 2004). Diversity means that differences among individuals should be acknowledged. Factors of diversity are defined as: biological sex, ethnicity, social origin, age, health status and sexual orientation. Thus, the approach is aimed at forms of domination that have a strong influence on social reality: patriarchal forms of authority that generate repression based on biological sex, racism, which discriminates on the basis of ethnicity, and capitalism, which determines class and socio-economic circumstances. On this basis, diversity seems like an idealistic objective which suggests that the aim is the abolishment of all forms of domination at once. It holds the promise of a veritable paradise: the equality of all humans. Management diversity as a company strategy promises to let individual diversity serve to benefit the company as a whole. There are two starting points form the company perspective: • anti-discrimination policies that are based on law; • the waste of resources that is caused by the repression of diversity. The goal of capitalistic enterprises is to sell their products as profitably as possible. The creation of diversity contributes to the attainment of this goal. At the same time, it solves two problems: The non-discrimination of individuals on the basis of certain 25

attributes avoids legal problems while the utilization of the potential of these diverse attributes can be used to meet entrepreneurial goals. Gender mainstreaming(GM) and managing diversity(MD) differ considerably in many respects as gender policy strategies. Origins GM grew out of the international feminist MD grew out of Human Resources Management movement and integrates women’s studies and integrates business science and and critical men’s studies. It has a political organizational sociology. It has a business-related background and social change is its goal. background and serves entrepreneurial goals. The Concept of Gender GM processes do not focus merely on gender as an attribute of individuals but are concerned with gender hierarchies, androcentrism and masculine culture; in other words, with the structures that determine inequality. Gender is conceived as a regulative practice that puts individuals in social positions(occupations), allocates resources and privileges to them(genderspecific division of labor), subjects them to violent relations and grants them privileges. GM processes can be concerned with the abolishment of gender hierarchy(inequality), gender polarity and gender duality. MD is concerned with the entrepreneurial utilization of the diversity of individuals who are categorized as belonging to one of two biological sexes. Gender remains a qualitative factor of individual experience that is to be integrated into and utilized in organizations. This can lead easily to an essential attribution of characteristics and potential, e.g. when women in management positions are used as bearers of typically female behavior(for a critique see Krell 2004). Goals The specification of concrete gender policy goals in GM processes occurs on the basis of democratic processes. These include, for example, the establishment of gender equality, acceptance for gender diversity and the de-gendering of norms and mechanisms. The goal of MD is to exploit existing differences between the biological sexes to augment the success of a business(image improvement, utilization of human resources, avoidance of the costs of discrimination and mobbing). The variety of experiences that result from the different living situations and life-styles that are based on biological sex are used to improve teamwork and customer focus. 26

Scope GM claims to transform all decision-making processes in an organization and to conduct gender analyses in every department. The emphasis is on the critical analysis of plans and measures and their modification when they don’t correspond to gender policy objectives. GM is aimed at the social conditions that perpetuate gender relations. Gender budgeting, a sub-strategy of GM, analyzes budgetary money flows. The variety of experiences that result from the different living situations and life-styles that are based on biological sex are used to improve teamwork and customer focus. Pay is not a factor. MD ends where it challenges commercial interests or where its costs are greater than benefits. The latter is the case for many gender problems, since wage discrimination and taking the reproductive responsibilities of all employees seriously are problems that can not be resolved with re-distribution. The re-distribution of temporal and financial resources between men and women as well as between employers and employees is not possible at company level alone. With respect to the dimensions of gender (biological sex, desire, gender; see Chapter 1), this can lead to situations in which women as well as individuals with different sexual orientations (desire) are not subject to discrimination and are granted access to resources. Relationship to Age, Ethnicity, Class and“Race” GM implies gender analyses that also include groups of persons. These groups consist of individuals whose living situations must be defined on the basis of gender as well as on the basis of other factors for discrimination. Gender analysis inquires into the contribution that the gender relations in a society make for individual living situations. Gender analyses that are related to value systems, methods and structures have gender as their focal point. Like all other discriminatory factors, gender is not additive. Rather, the issue is to comprehend the mutual determination by and, in particular, within discriminatory structures. MD claims to encompass all discriminatory factors. However, they are used only in terms of their quality and plurality and not analyzed and challenged as factors within discriminatory systems. This can result in the perpetuation of differences as a means to utilize their respective potential. There is the risk that the culture of dominance on which discrimination is based will be reproduced instead of abolished. Viewing differences- or what was hitherto perceived as an aberrance – as something positive can result in its essentialization, thereby consolidating and perpetuating differences. Cultures of dominance are left unchallenged. Instead, they merely have to make room for that which has been suppressed in order to utilize the potential of individual differences for defined(commercial) objectives. When diversity is defined as an entrepreneurial goal it is intended to avoid all forms of discriminatory practices, including those based on biological sex(in all dimensions). However, managing diversity does not aim at changing the causes of dissimilarities and the conditions that generate them. This type of degendering is not an objective of MD. If masculine attitudes serve entrepreneurial goals, then they are reinforced instead of abolished. 27

Focal Points of Training GM processes address all members of an organization since it is concerned with the products of the organization for which all are responsible. Gender competence is the focus of training and it implies recognizing the gender aspects of one’s own tasks and to perform these tasks within gender policy guidelines. This requires a combination of gender knowledge and professional expertise. MD is above all the task of the personnel department, which is responsible for ensuring recognition for all employees. Training focuses on raising awareness for gender differences, changing attitudes so that these differences are respected and learning how to utilize their potential. The elimination of prejudice and challenging stereotypes are the requirements for practicing the equal treatment envisioned by MD. Relation to Affirmative Action for Women GM is a strategy that is based on affirmative action for women, complements it and extends it to include the analysis of male structures and value systems. GM also includes“affirmative action for men” if it is called for by gender analysis. In the public sector, affirmative action for women is required by law and gender mainstreaming is binding under European law. In contrast, many private companies have no explicit strategy for the affirmative action of women. The Works Council Constitution Law grants works councils limited powers to act against discrimination based on biological sex. Experience has shown that it is difficult to assert these powers. A few large companies have introduced affirmative action for women on a voluntary basis. When MD is seen as more comprehensive than affirmative action for women in these companies and women’s representatives become diversity managers, the actual results of the new approach can only provide information on whether or not. The“former” approach was more successful. Industry associations’ vehement opposition to a law for affirmative action based on sex in the private economy indicates that management would rather determine the scope of affirmative action policies itself and without any form of obligation. For personnel policy in the public sector, a diversity concept can extend affirmative action strategies as long as it continues to support affirmative action for women. 28

Literature Butler, Judith, 1991: Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter. Frankfurt/Main Connell, Robert W., 1999: Der gemachte Mann. Konstruktion und Krise von Männlichkeiten. Opladen Deutscher Städtetag: Vorbericht für die 349. Sitzung des Präsidiums des Deutschen Städtetages am 8. – 9. Juni 2004 in Neuss: Top 4: Gender Mainstreaming – Methode systematischer Folgenbewertung bei kommunaler Rechtssetzung Döge, Peter, Stiegler, Barbara, 2004: Gender Mainstreaming in Deutschland. In: Neusüss, Claudia, Meuser, Michael: Gender Mainstreaming. Konzepte, Handlungsfelder, Instrumente. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Bonn. S. 135-157 Döge, Peter, 2004: Managing Diversity – Von der Antidiskriminierung zur produktiven Gestaltung von Vielfalt. In: Theorie und Praxis der sozialen Arbeit 3, S. 11-16 Fraser, Nancy, 1997: Die halbierte Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt Frey, Regina, 2000: Ganz natürlich? In: TAZ-Magazin Nr. 6918 vom 30.11.2002, S. 7 Frey, Regina, 2003: Gender Mainstreaming. Geschlechtertheorie und –praxis im internationalen Diskurs, Königstein/Taunus Friedan, Betty, 1970: Der Weiblichkeitswahn oder die Selbstbefreiung der Frau. Hamburg Gottschall, Karin, 1998: Doing Gender while Doing Work? Erkenntnispotenziale konstruktivistischer Perspektiven für eine Analyse des Zusammenhangs von Arbeitsmarkt, Beruf und Geschlecht. In: Geissler, Birgit, Maier, Friederike, Pfau-Effinger, Birgit(Hrsg.) 1998: FrauenArbeitsMarkt. Berlin, S. 63-95 Gottschall, Karin, 2000: Soziale Ungleichheit und Geschlecht. Opladen Haraway, Donna, 1995: Die Neuerfindung der Natur. Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen. Frankfurt/Main, New York Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 2004, Grünbuch. Gleichstellung sowie Bekämpfung von Diskriminierungen in einer erweiterten Europäischen Union.KOM(2004)379 Kreisky, Eva, Sauer, Birgit(Hrsg.) 1995: Feministische Standpunkte in der Politikwissenschaft. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt/New York. Krell, Gertraude, 2004: Vorteile eines neuen, weiblichen Führungsstils. Ideologie, Kritik und Diskursanalyse. In: Krell, Gertraude, 2004: Chancengleichheit durch Personalpolitik. Hamburg, S. 377-392 Krell, Gertraude, Carl, Andrea-Hiller, Krehnke, Anna, 2001: Diskriminierungsfreie Bewertung von(Dienstleistungs-)Arbeit, Vergleichsprojekt bei der Landeshauptstadt Hannover, im Auftrag der ver.di-Bundesvorstand, ÖTV e.V. Stuttgart Krüger, Helga, 2003: Professionalisierung von Frauenberufen – Oder Männer für Frauenberufe interessieren? Das Doppelgesicht des arbeitsmarktlichen Geschlechtersystems. In: Heinz, Katrin, Thiessen, Barbara(Hrsg.): Feministische Forschung – Nachhaltige Einsprüche. Opladen. S. 123-145 Lange, Ralf, 1998: Geschlechterverhältnisse im Management von Organisationen. Mehring. 29

Lockett, Tony, 2004: Für Vielfalt – gegen Diskriminierung. Perspektiven europäischer Antidiskriminierungspolitik. In: Ministerium für Gesundheit, Soziales, Frauen und Familie des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen: Fachtagung, Dokumentation“Ungleich besser: Vielfalt statt Diskriminierung.” Düsseldorf, S. 14-21 Lorber, Judith, 1999: Genderparadoxien. Opladen Lorber, Judith, 2004: Man muß bei Gender ansetzen, um Gender zu demontieren: Feministische Theorie und Degendering. In: Zeitschrift für Frauenforschung und Geschlechterstudien, 22, 2+3, S. 9- 25 Maihofer, Andrea, Böhnisch, Tomke, Wolf, Anne, 2001: Wandel der Familie. Hans-BöcklerStiftung, Arbeitspapier 48. Düsseldorf Meuser, Michael, 2004: Geschlechterforschung und Soziologie der Männlichkeit. In: Döge, Peter, Kassner, Karsten, Schambach, Gabriele(Hrsg.): Schaustelle Gender. Aktuelle Beiträge sozialwissenschaftlicher Geschlechterforschung. Bielefeld, S. 29-41 Netzwerk Gender Training(Hrsg.) 2004: Geschlechterverhältnisse bewegen. Erfahrungen mit Gender Training. Königstein/Taunus Nicholson, Linda, 1994: Was heißt“Gender”? In: Institut für Sozialforschung. Frankfurt(Hrsg.): Geschlechterverhältnisse und Politik. Frankfurt. S. 188-221 Pease, Allan, Pease, Barbara, 2000: Warum Männer nicht zuhören und Frauen schlecht einparken. Ganz natürliche Erklärungen für eigentlich unerklärliche Schwächen. Berlin Rühling, Annelie, Kassner, Karsten, Grottian, Peter, 2004: Geschlechterdemokratie leben. Junge Eltern zwischen Familienpolitik und Alltagserfahrungen. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte(B 19). S. 11-18 Schambach, Gabriele, 2004: Genderaspekte in der Planung des Potsdamer Platzes in Berlin. In: Döge, Peter, Kassner, Karsten, Schambach, Gabriele(Hrsg.): Schaustelle Gender. Aktuelle Beiträge sozialwissenschaftlicher Geschlechterforschung. Bielefeld, S. 172-191 Sellach, Brigitte, Enders-Dragässer, Uta, Baer, Susanne, Kuhl, Mara, Kress, Brigitta, 2003: Wissensnetz. Gender Mainstreaming in der Bundesverwaltung: http://www.bmfsfj.de/gm/wissensnetz.html Stiegler, Barbara, 2002: GENDER MACHT POLITIK – 10 Fragen und Antworten zum Konzept Gender Mainstreaming. Hrsg. vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, Bonn Thiessen, Barbara, 2003: Re-Formulierung des Privaten. Professionalisierung personenbezogener, haushaltsnaher Dienstleistung, Opladen Vinken, Barbara, 2001: Die deutsche Mutter. Der lange Schatten eines Mythos. München Weg, Marianne, 2004: Going Gender in die BürgerInnengesellschaft? Gender Mainstreaming in zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn 2004 Werner, Petra, 2004: Geschlechterperspektiven im Journalismus. Redemanuskript www.jounalistinnen.de Wetterer, Angelika(Hrsg.) 1995: Die soziale Konstruktion von Geschlecht in Professionalisierungsprozessen. Frankfurt/Main Wichterich, Christa, 2003: Femme globale: Globalisierung ist nicht geschlechtsneutral. Hamburg. 30

Recommended reading: Stiegler, B.: Zur Aufhebung des Eheprivilegs im Grundgesetz, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Juni 1992 Stiegler, B.: Vom gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit den Qualifikationen von Frauen – eine Kritik des herrschenden Qualifikationskonzeptes, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialforschung, November 1992* Stiegler, B.: Zur Zukunft der Hausarbeit, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, März 1993 Stiegler, B.: In Zukunft wieder Reservearmee? – Frauen und demographischer Wandel, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, August 1993 Stiegler, B.: Die Doppelverdienerin – Zur geschlechtshierarchischen Verdienstdifferenz, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Dezember 1993* Stiegler, B.: Berufe brauchen kein Geschlecht – Zur Aufwertung sozialer Kompetenzen in Dienstleistungsberufen, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-EbertStiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Dezember 1994* Stiegler, B.: Der Tauschwert sozialer Qualifikation. Die Tarifierung einer vermeintlich weiblichen Kompetenz, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-EbertStiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Juli 1996 Stiegler, B.: Das Geschlecht als Bremse? Lebenswirklichkeiten junger Frauen und gewerkschaftliche Organisation, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der FriedrichEbert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, September 1996* Stiegler, B.: Das 654-Milliarden-Paket. Über den Wert der in privaten Haushalten geleisteten hauswirtschaftlichen Arbeit und deren gesellschaftliche Organisation, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Mai 1997* Stiegler, B.: Die verborgene Armut der Frauen, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Januar 1998* Stiegler, B.: Die verborgenen Schätze der Frauen. Über die Aufwertung der Qualifikationen aus der Familienarbeit in der Erwerbsarbeit, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, Februar 1998* Stiegler, B.: Heim zur Arbeit. Telearbeit und Geschlechterverhältnis, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeits- und Sozialforschung, November 1998 Stiegler, B.: Frauen im Mainstreaming. Politische Strategien und Theorien zur Geschlechterfrage, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-EbertStiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, Dezember 1998* 31

Stiegler, B.: Mutter, Kind und Vater Staat. Geschlechterpolitische Aspekte des Erziehungsgehalts, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-EbertStiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, April 1999* Stiegler, B.: Welcher Lohn für welche Arbeit? Über die Aufwertung der Frauenarbeit, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, Dezember 1999* Stiegler, B.: Wie Gender in den Mainstream kommt – Konzepte, Argumente und Praxisbeispiele zur EU-Strategie des Gender Mainstreaming, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, August 2000* Stiegler, B.: GENDER MACHT POLITIK – 10 Fragen und Antworten zum Konzept Gender Mainstreaming, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-EbertStiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, September 2002* Stiegler, B.: Gender Mainstreaming – Postmoderner Schmusekurs oder geschlechterpolitische Chance? Argumente zur Diskussion, herausgegeben vom Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik, September 2003* Publications marked with an asterisk(*) are available on the internet. Address: http://www.fes.de Page: Bibliothek Page: Digitale Bibliothek Author’s name: Stiegler http://www.fes.de/aspol Right buttons: Aktuelles About the author: Dr. Barbara Stiegler, who has masters degrees in psychology and educational science, is a researcher at the Center for Economic and Social Policy Research at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Department for Labor and Social Policy, Bonn. Work focus: Women’s Studies 32