Response to the consultation on the Equalities Review Interim report
Name
Yessica Alvarez-Manzano
Address
Email address
Contact Number
Name of Organisation on whose behalf you
are responding
Position (if applicable)
1-3 Berry Street
London
EC1V 0AA
yessica.alvarez@fawcettsociety.org.uk
0207 253 2598
The Fawcett Society
I do want my response to be made public
I do want the fact that I have made a response to be made public
Which best describes your organisation: Voluntary sector/charity
Indicate any area which is a particular focus of your response: Gender equality
May 2006
Fawcett’s vision is of a society in which both women and men enjoy equality at work, at home
and in public life.
The Fawcett Society welcomes the opportunity to respond to The Equalities Review: Interim
Report. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity as the Equalities Review, along with the
current legislation, the equality codes and the Discrimination Law Review1 will shape the
introduction of Government’s framework for equality as we move towards the creation of the
new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
As the statistics given below demonstrate, despite 30 years of sex discrimination and equal
pay legislation, gender inequalities remains pronounced and persistent.
 Women received on average just 54 pence for every £1 of income received by men2
 Women made only up to 20% of MPs in 2005
 Just over 5% of rapes reported to the police in 2004 ended in a conviction3
 Violence against women affects at least one in two women over their lifetime in the
UK, and the vast majority of perpetrators across all the categories (domestic violence,
rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and stalking) are male4
It is beyond doubt that to understand inequality requires a comprehensive understanding of
gender inequality in both the public and in the private sphere. We outline in this paper
significant developments that are needed in both the thinking and in the evidence base
behind the Equalities Review in order to fully understand the nature, and causes, of gender
inequality in the UK today.
Summary
We are deeply concerned by the fact that the Equalities Review looks only to the public
sphere for measures of inequality. Our previous response to the Equalities Review
highlighted the importance of looking at domestic sphere dynamics and power relations and
the importance of understanding violence against women and its impact on gender
inequalities. A copy is attached for your reference.5
As we highlighted, a major causes of chronic and persistent gender inequality is the
construction of social roles, division of labour and power relations between women
and men, including violence against women each of which occurs in the private or
domestic sphere. In the last 30 years there has been a revolution in the numbers of women
taking paid employment but this has not been mirrored to the same extent by increased
participation of men in unpaid caring or domestic work. This continued gender imbalance in
the domestic sphere limits women’s participation in the labour market and means they are
competing on unequal terms with men.6 However, in the Review, there is no mention of the
role that men have to play as change agents, for example by changing male attitudes to
violence, sharing childcare responsibilities or domestic work. This serious omission results in
the Review presenting an incomplete picture of both causes and consequences of inequality.
1
Fawcett response to the Discrimination Law review is available at www.fawcettsociety.org.uk
Women and Equality Unit, 2004
3 A Gap or Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases, Home Office, 2005 in ‘Are we there yet?: 30 years of
closing the gap between women and men, The Fawcett Society, November 2005’
4 Making the grade?, Violence Against Women Coalition Campaign, November 2005
5 Fawcett response to the Equalities Review is available online at:
www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=156
6 Money, Money, Money: is it still a rich man’s world?, The Fawcett Society, May 2005
2
2
Nevertheless the Equalities Review proposed analytical framework is, in part, amenable to
including inequality in the domestic sphere and we suggest appropriate changes to the
framework in the response below.
1) Focusing on disadvantage is important but disadvantage is different from
inequality. Inequality should be treated as a problem in its own right.
We are concerned that much of the Equalities Review focuses on disadvantage rather
than on equality. In our view, understanding the sources of inequality and how to promote
equality provides the more useful framework for the following reasons:
a) Inequality in power matters. From business, to politics and the media, power remains
a male preserve with the result that the majority of decisions affecting women’s daily
lives are taken by men. Our evidence suggests that increasing the numbers of women
in power has an impact on the type and quality of decisions taken and the credibility
of the institutions. For example, it is women MPs that have put the issues of violence
against women, childcare and women’s pensions onto the political agenda while
having a woman candidate increases the likelihood that women, and men, voters
believe that politics makes a difference to their lives. For these reasons, we believe
that a more equal distribution of power between women and men is the key to the
promotion of equality in economic and social outcomes.
b) At first glance the issues affecting women caught on a ‘sticky floor’ of low paid, parttime employment seem quite different from those affecting women who are trying to
advance their professional careers and break through the ‘glass ceiling’. However,
further study reveals many common causes. Inflexible workplace practices which
make it difficult to combine parenting and caring with labour market participation;
pregnancy-related and sex discrimination and sexual harassment affect all parts of
the labour market. And it is only by looking at inequality, rather than at the most
disadvantaged, that the structural roots of gender inequality can be understood.
c) Although there have been advances in understanding the dynamics of poverty, the
‘disadvantaged’ are frequently categorised as such on the basis of a statistical
snapshot. The focus on disadvantage risks overlooking the impact of a lifetime’s
experience of inequality and its effect on the ability of individuals to realise their
potential. It is only through the lens of inequality that we can understand how many
women, although not currently counted among the poor, are only a ‘man away from
poverty’ and the risks this presents both in terms of current dependence on a partner
and vulnerability to poverty following separation or divorce.
2) Fawcett welcomes the emphasis on lifetime trigger episodes. This approach is
helpful when analysing certain inequalities, but further work is needed for a gender
perspective to be incorporated fully into this approach.
We welcome in particular the attention given to motherhood as a trigger for disadvantage
but are concerned that the understanding of trigger episodes has not be extended to
other areas of women’s lives, in particular violence against women. With regards violence
against women it is the fact of being born a woman that can the trigger for inequality. And,
it is useful to understand how violence might be affected by other trigger episodes, for
example pregnancy often triggers the start or worsening of episodes of domestic violence.
3) The importance of measures of inequality is welcome however it is important to
create meaningful and rich quality of life measures.
To do so it is important to look beyond headline measures which are often simply
measure quantity to examine the quality of change underlying these headline measures.
To give a concrete example, although there have been considerable increases in the
numbers of women moving into employment (70% of women are in employment and
women now make up nearly half, 46%, of the labour force in Britain) the quality of
3
women’s work has not changed at the same rate with women concentrated in part-time
employment (79% of part-time employees are women) and within the ‘four Cs’, namely
caring, cleaning, catering and cash registers, all of which are poorly paid occupations.
Equally, media attention is typically trained on headline figures of girls and boys GCSE
grades with little attention paid to subject choices (where advances in girls’ attainment
has not been matched by a decrease in the gender segregation of subject choices) or
how, for girls, this early head start may be reversed during further education or when
entering employment. There is, in addition, the issue of the unit of measurement. It
remains common statistical practice to assess income, benefit receipt and poverty at the
household or benefit unit level ignoring the distribution of income between individual
women and men. This overlooks potential economic vulnerability within the household
and the impact that an individual’s own resources have on their ability to fulfil their
potential.
Response by chapter:
Foreword
The Equality Review attempts to ‘avoid the temptation simply to respond to special interests’
of those ‘best organised, often most well-funded and most popular causes’ or pressure
groups (Review p.3 and p.9). We recognise the need to avoid debates being dominated by
those individuals who have the loudest voice. However Fawcett believes that this should be
balanced against a need to develop appropriate mechanisms to hear all voices, recognising
the value of lived experience of inequality and organisations’ expertise and evidence of
inequality. We call for the Review to recognise the vital role grassroots and lobby groups
have played both in providing services and driving the transformation of society.
Chapter 2: The 100 year frame, part one: the last 60 years
The confusion between quantity vs. quality of measures we refer to above is particularly
pertinent to Review Chapter 2 and Review Chapter 3. Pointing out that ‘employment
penalties faced by women as a group have steadily reduced over time (p.23)’ and that there
are now equal numbers of women and men in employment does not mean there is equality in
the workplace. The pay gap between women and men in full time employment has been
closing, albeit very slowly. But for women working part-time the gap has hardly closed at all.
And, pay gaps are even bigger for most ethnic minority women7. At the current rate of
change, Fawcett has calculated it will take 85 years to close the pay gap for women working
full time and more than 140 for those working part time. We would like to encourage the
Equalities Review to use measures that capture the quality of employment and, crucially, to
suggest strategies that will close the pay gap, end the undervaluation of women’s labour,
remove barriers to career progression and women’s concentration in low paid, part-time
employment .
Chapter 3: Emerging findings
Trigger episodes
As we mentioned in point 4, looking at trigger episodes is helpful in some circumstances but
fails in others. In terms of gender-based violence, being born a woman can be in itself a
trigger for inequality in the UK. This is particularly evident when we look at violence against
women in the UK: almost half of all adult women in England and Wales have experienced
domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. As Kofi Annan stated:
“Too many women are still denied basic human rights. Too often, their liberty and
dignity are compromised. And, too many of them are subjected to violence. Violence
7
Are we there yet?: 30 years of closing the gap between women and men, The Fawcett Society, November 2005
4
against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And, it is
perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth.
As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality,
development and peace.” 8
For centuries, across contexts and cultures, violence against women has been justified,
denied and legitimised. For instance, research studies with children and young people in the
UK revealed that most children and young people do not accept that violence against women
is legitimate, but when asked more contextual questions uncertainty and justification emerge,
particularly among young men9. We are concerned that although evidence has been
presented by Fawcett and other organisations such as the Women’s National Commission
and Women’s Resource Centre, the review does not give enough attention to violence
against women and none of the priorities (Review p.62) address this issue either.
Nevertheless we welcome the Review’s view that in the past, some disadvantages were
regarded as outside the scope of public intervention. But now, thanks to tireless
campaigning, violence against women has began to take a place on the political agenda..
Equally, we would encourage the Equalities Review to challenge the dynamics of the
domestic sphere by suggesting measures that encourage a more equal division of labour at
home and more balance in power relations.
Life stages
Although analysing inequality based on a life stages approach (Review p.33-61) is important
and potentially very helpful in understanding gender inequality, the suggested stages reflect
a traditional male lifecycle, where a baby is born, educated to work and provide for a family
until retirement (Early years, School age and young adults, Working age and Older people).
Women’s lives, however, cannot be seen through the same lens as men’s due to differences
in opportunities, needs, roles, and responsibilities. Understanding that there are different life
cycles for women and men is also important in identifying the gender dimension of trigger
episodes (Review p. 29). For example, the current framework is ill-adapted to understand the
trigger episode of teenage motherhood and how this impacts on their education and
employment prospects.
Finding chronic and persistent inequalities
The traditional approach to eliminating inequality is by addressing it in the public sphere (e.g.
ensuring women’s representation in Parliament), and it is the same approach the Equalities
Review has taken. We believe it is important to address imbalances in political elites and
other bastions of power and that changing the make-up of decision makers to be more
representative is a vital tool to address inequality at all levels of society. However this must
be done in tandem with looking at the domestic sphere. We encourage the Equalities
Review to move away from the narrow traditional view to incorporate the domestic
sphere. These can be incorporated in the Review’s framework though the capabilities
threshold, for example the goods (basic minimum set of capabilities, Review p.8) needed to
overcome inequality should not only be ‘public’ goods (i.e. basic education, English skills
Review p.8) but also ‘private/domestic’ goods, such as freedom of violence at home and
good quality affordable childcare.
Chapter 4: A stronger case for equality
Fawcett believes that, when defining the costs of inequality (p.64-69) it is not acceptable to
have left out the costs of violence to society. ‘The most recent research in the UK only
addresses domestic violence in England and Wales and estimates a yearly cost to the state
8
UN Speech: Violence against women 'most shameful', pervasive human rights violation. Kofi Annan, New York,
March 1999
9 What a waste: The case for an integrated Violence Against Women Strategy, Women’s National Commission
and London Metropolitan University, January 2005
5
of almost £6 billion’10. This is in addition to the human and emotional costs, which have been
estimated at three times the cost to the public purse at £17 billion11.
Chapter 5
Capabilities
Emphasising individual choices and capacities rather than addressing the systematic and
social barriers to equality fails to expose the systematic discrimination limiting people’s
potential. By emphasising individual capacities the Equalities Review overlooks the
importance of removing structural barriers to inequality.
The capabilities approach is meant to emphasise the right for individuals to lead a life that
enables them to reach their full potential. For this to be achieved, gender discrimination must
be challenged. If not, women will continue to be, on the whole, paid less based only on their
gender, be seen as primary carers based only on their gender, and suffer violence, based
only on their gender. These are not barriers that can be overcome by individual choices and
determination, except in exceptional circumstances. A transformation in both the private and
public sphere that challenges chronic and persistent gender inequality is needed.
Again we believe it is possible to expose the systematic discrimination and barriers
preventing equality by building into the suggested capabilities approach a challenge to power
and resource inequality in the domestic sphere. For example, perhaps the Review is correct
when pointing out that the capabilities approach could facilitate the recognition of potential
disadvantage accumulated over a lifetime (p.74), however, as we point out above,
‘emphasising the way in which social institutions and policies tend either to enhance or stunt
the development of an individual’s life chances’ needs to be done in tandem with an
understanding of how inequality in social roles, the domestic division of power and labour
prevent the development of women’s life successes or life chances.
What a waste: The case for an integrated Violence Against Women Strategy, Women’s National Commission
and London Metropolitan University, January 2005
11 Ibid
10
6