Backlash, gender fatigue and organisational change: AIRAANZ 2019 presidential address

Introduction

There is little doubt that gender equality is firmly front and centre of public debates and policy making. Gains continue to be made to progress gender equality, however, progress is uneven, and the risk of regression is ever-present. This article considers why, despite the ongoing and heightened level of feminist activity, workplace gender equality remains elusive. Two reasons are advanced for this lack of progress. Firstly, it is proposed that male backlash, a form of resistance to gender equality, has resurfaced. Secondly, a more passive form of resistance – that of ‘gender fatigue’ is also evident. Gender fatigue is part of a backlash, and is perhaps more prevalent and difficult to counter, as it is subtle yet pervasive. This article considers how organisational gender fatigue as well as individual gender fatigue manifests. Further, the article considers how backlash and gender fatigue can be overcome to ensure progress towards workplace gender equality can be sustained. It concludes by engaging in a feminist imagining of what a truly gender equitable workplace might look like and how this might be achieved.

A resurgence in feminist activism

We are seeing a great outpouring of feminist activism, largely centred around action to highlight and prevent violence against women. The latest surge of activism arguably commenced with the ‘pink pussy hat’ movement in the USA, where in January 2017, women wore pink knitted hats in protest at the election of a misogynist President who bragged about ‘grabbing women by their pussies’ (Moss and Maddrell 2017). An estimated 3.6 to 4.6 million North Americans attended various ‘Women’s Marches’ across the USA (Waddell 2017). Gender equality was then propelled along by the ‘#MeToo’ movement in America. #MeToo was started a decade earlier by three women who had experienced sexual violence and was a campaign to engender solidarity between other women who had also been sexually assaulted (Zarkov and Davis 2018).

In October 2017, the movement gained impetus when ‘MeToo’ became a Twitter hashtag, after allegations of sexual assault against American film producer Harvey Weinstein emerged (Zarkov and Davis 2018). This prompted an outpouring of stories from women about their experiences of sexual assault – both on Twitter, where the hashtag was used 19 million times in the following year (Anderson and Toor 2018) and through other media. #MeToo has since swelled to become an international movement (Zarkov and Davis 2018).

Australian women joined in this campaign, possibly recalling former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s famous ‘misogyny speech’ directed to the former Opposition Leader some years earlier (Gillard 2012). Women told their own stories of sexual harassment and abuse, which led to a range of Australian luminaries being named as harassers (Dixon-Smith 2018). Subsequently, the Australian Human Rights Commission re-ran their national sexual harassment survey, prompting the Australian Council of Trade Unions and various unions to also conduct surveys (AHRC 2018; McDonald 2018; Transport Workers’ Union 2018). The ongoing domestic and family violence against women also gained prominence, propelled by campaigns such as ‘Counting Dead Women’, a Facebook site dedicated to counting the number of women in Australia who have died as a result of violence (mostly domestic violence) (Baker 2018). The outpouring of community anger and grief at the recent (as at the time of writing), highly publicised rapes and murders of young women in Australia (Truu 2019) also gave force to this issue. The community and government have been compelled to pay attention and act, including through the provision of domestic violence leave (Williamson et al. 2019).

The outpouring of women’s anger has even galvanised women who avowedly do not identify as feminists. One example is a previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Minister for Women in the governing Liberal/National Party (LNP), Julie Bishop, who, prior to 2018, did not identify as a feminist (Ireland 2014). Bishop resigned from the position of Deputy Prime Minister after a leadership contest which she lost to Scott Morrison, and which was widely perceived to highlight the myth of meritocracy in the LNP (Matthewson 2019). Bishop wore red high heels, making them a symbol of political feminism, to highlight the LNP’s reluctance to select and promote women, an issue which had gained momentum at this time (Wright 2018). Bishop subsequently donated the famous shoes to the Museum of Australian Democracy (SBS News 2018), ensuring that the issue of women’s under-representation in the Liberal Party would be remembered. Other Liberal women emulated this symbolism, wearing red shoes or jackets to parliament (Wright 2018). The debates occurring in the conservative Coalition government about the treatment of women, the need for quotas, and the nature of merit (Matthewson 2019) shows just how far feminism is infiltrating Australian politics and society.

The widespread activism of women is being called the ‘fourth’ wave of feminism, even though the concept of feminism coming in ‘waves’ is contested (Gillis et al. 2004; Chamberlain 2017). This ‘wave’ follows on from women gaining suffrage at the turn of the 20th century; the 1970s activists who focused on sexual liberation, workplace rights and other legal inequalities; and third wave feminism which focused on intersectionality, and also ‘zine’ culture and from which the ‘Riot Grrrl’ movement and the concept of ‘girl power’ briefly emerged (Curthoys 1988, Church Gibson 2004, Chamberlain 2017). Researchers have now identified a fourth wave, with women’s activism centred on exposing rape culture and continued violence against women, and focusing on intersectionality and inclusion (Chamberlain 2017). This latest movement arose out of activism following the implementation of austerity measures arising as a result of the Global Financial Crisis, which recreated a culture of protest. This latest wave was also enabled by social media (Chamberlain 2017).

Even though some small strides towards gender equality are being made, progress, as always, is uneven, as three recent reports show. Firstly, Evans et al. (2018) found that while Australians overwhelmingly acknowledge that gender inequality is still a problem, two-fifths (41%) of all men believe that gender equality measures do not include men. They also believe that ‘political correctness’ gives women an advantage in the workplace (41%). Secondly, Baird et al. (2018) found that what young women most want from work is respect, with only two-thirds saying they were treated with respect at work (68%). Additionally, less than a third of women surveyed considered they were treated equally at work, compared with half of all men surveyed who considered women experienced equal treatment (Baird et al. 2018). Thirdly, two-fifths of Australians believe that ‘many women exaggerate how unequally women are treated in Australia’ and over two-fifths also think women make sexual assault allegations to ‘get back’ at men (ANROWS 2017).

This ingrained misogyny persists due to the ongoing persistence of patriarchy, which is aided by the shifting nature of inequality. As gains are made in some areas, progress on gender equality retreats in others. Patriarchy is aided by a continuing backlash against gender equality, which takes the form of gender fatigue, which is part of a backlash. The most common understanding of a backlash is of an active resistance to gender equality, and this can also be present in organisational and individual forms. The next section examines the operation of patriarchy in the workplace.

The persistence of patriarchy in the workplace

From being seen as the preserve of leftist feminists and old socialists, Higgins (2018) notes that the term ‘patriarchy’ is once again in common usage. Patriarchy has been defined as ‘a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women’ (Walby 1989) (noting that this well-accepted definition is binary). It exists and is reinforced through cultural institutions, such as the media, is perpetuated by the state and also relies on male violence. It exists in social relations, sexual relations and is intertwined with capitalism, which relies, in part, on women’s unpaid labour to function (Walby 1989). It exists in the modes of production and in paid work, and has adapted to changing capitalist systems.

The structures of patriarchy – of which paid work is one (Walby 1989) – is also fluid and adaptable. As Higgins states: ‘(p)atriarchy is nimble and lithe. Its margins of operation always seem to be expanding’. Patriarchy is even strengthened as structures respond and seek to curtail feminism. With each new ‘wave’ of women’s activism, patriarchy changes: ‘(i)f “patriarchy” has returned as an idea in public debate, it is because feminism has returned with renewed vigour; because inequality has not been eradicated.’ Similarly, Ahmed argues that the current feminist revival is occurring ‘because of what is not over’ (2017, 30).

Rather than ascribing ongoing gender inequality to patriarchy, however, women themselves are often blamed – a clever trick of a patriarchal system. This is endemic within workplaces, where approaches to progress gender equality are too often based on a ‘fix the woman’ approach, rather than implementing systemic changes (Ely and Meyerson 2000). As Ahmed (2017) argues, gender inequality does not appear to exist until the problems are pointed out – it is as if feminists themselves create the problems. Feminists, however, are required to ‘create’ these problems over and over. Adrienne Rich stated that it ‘is the erasure of women’s political and historical past which makes each new generation of feminists appear as an abnormal excrescence on the face of time’ (cited in Faludi 1991, 66). Every new generation of feminists are treated as aberrations – from early suffragists, to current activists. Women and feminist allies are forced to maintain gains and fight for new ones, whilst not becoming exhausted.

Gains to achieve gender equality, have, nonetheless, been made. Reviewing a decade since the introduction of the Fair Work Act (Williamson et al. 2019), it is evident that some progress has been made, however, gains have been frustratingly slow, highlighting the persistence of inequality and the strength of the patriarchal system. For example, women’s labour force participation continues to increase, but women predominate in lower paid work in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector (ABS 2018). Close to one in two jobs held by women are part-time (Anderson and Toor 2018), and mature aged women in particular are underemployed (Miranti and Li 2017; Anderson and Toor 2018). The gender pay gap at a national level is still close to 15 per cent (WGEA 2018). The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has estimated at the current rate of progress, the gender pay gap is expected to last for at least 50 more years, until around 2067 (McIlroy 2017). In 2015–16, women’s superannuation balances averaged $68,000 – less than two-thirds of average male balances (Clare 2017). Gains made in gender equality are made slowly, and are fragile. One of the main ways detractors seek to curtail gender equality is through gender fatigue and backlash, as discussed in the next section.

Gender fatigue and backlash

Researchers have identified a spectrum of resistance to the implementation of gender equality initiatives, under the encompassing term of ‘backlash’. A male backlash includes denial and non-recognition that gender inequality is a problem, through to active resistance which can include aggression to suggestions that change is needed, and the dismantling of any programmes to progress gender equality (Flood et al. 2018; VicHealth 2018). The two ends of the spectrum are discussed in this section, commencing with the passive form of backlash – gender fatigue.

A simple form of gender fatigue occurs when people are tired of hearing about gender equality (or diversity); of feeling they are required to constantly be ‘politically correct’, and tired of having to attend ineffective training sessions on gender and diversity (Hastings 2008; Elevate Talent undated). Going a little deeper, Kelan (2009) explains that gender fatigue occurs when gender discrimination exists in a workplace, but is unacknowledged or denied, resulting in workplaces which appear to be gender neutral, but in actuality, are not.

Thomas and Plaut (2008) note that as well as negative organisational outcomes, gender fatigue results in decreased opportunities for individuals, such as lack of access to mentoring (Thomas and Plaut 2008). This is not helped by some men saying that they are too ‘afraid’ to mentor women, as North American survey results have shown (Soklaridis et al. 2018). Additionally, some men are reportedly not meeting female colleagues alone, or not meeting with women they do not know well or who are subordinate to them (Soklaridis et al. 2018, 2270). As one researcher notes, this positions men as victims, as being vulnerable and at risk, which effectively appropriates women’s voices and fears and reinforces male privilege (Soklaridis et al. 2018). This positioning further strengthens bonds between men, can increase distrust of affirmative action measures (Burke 2005), and again, is an example of another way patriarchy reproduces itself in the workplace.

My colleagues (Linda Colley, Meraiah Foley and Rae Cooper) and I have encountered evidence of gender fatigue. After speaking with almost 300 middle managers about their understandings of gender equality and how they implemented their organisation’s gender equality policies, we found a persistent level of gender fatigue. While managers were overwhelmingly committed, many gave comments such as ‘gender has been done’ or ‘gender is not an issue here’. Many participants were committed to the idea of organisational gender equality, however, were rather tired of hearing about such issues. Their fatigue stemmed not only from hearing the same organisational messages, but also because they did not know how to individually make progress. Many participants did not know how to talk about gender equality issues to their staff and did not know how to conduct human resource processes to eliminate gender biases and discrimination. This fatigue is driven by a lack of understanding.

The phenomena of gender fatigue is nuanced and can take various forms. Gill (2016) have identified that as well as a general tiredness and reluctance to talk about gender equality or implement gender equality initiatives, gender fatigue also manifests with an acceptance of the status quo. In essence, some forms of gender inequality were seen to be natural and inevitable. Many participants assumed that traditional gender roles were natural, as was occupational segregation – particularly in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine. Participants discussed horizontal gender segregation, where some employment areas were highly feminised, while others were male dominated. Some participants considered that redressing occupational segregation was not their organisation’s responsibility as it was shaped by broader societal norms and therefore outside the realm of the workplace. When society becomes more gender equitable (the argument goes), workplaces will too and gender equality will flow through. Similarly, generational change was also seen to be a driver for gender equality, placing responsibility outside the organisation. As discussed earlier, the re-emergence of various forms of patriarchy works to limit this avenue of progress.

Moving from the passive resistance of gender fatigue to the more active resistance of male backlash moves us to the other end of the resistance spectrum. A backlash is a ‘strong adverse reaction by a group of people who think that others have received undeserved benefits’ (Soklaridis et al. 2018, 2272), which are not based on merit (Van Buren 1997; CEW and MCC undated). Backlash is a form of resistance to the implementation of gender equality and diversity initiatives. Backlash occurs not because gender equality has been achieved, but because of the increasing possibility that this may occur (Burke 2005).

As White and McDonald (2018) state: ‘(w)hen power is challenged and progress is sought, those who seek to lose that power will rise up to slap down the movement, limiting, and, at times, rolling back that progress, and finding ways to undermine, attack and discredit those who have sought change’. Twenty-seven years ago, Susan Faludi (1991) created a furore by documenting the backlash against women. She noted that backlash is not new, as evidenced by penalties imposed on childless and unwed women in ancient Rome, and the witch burnings of medieval Europe. These occasions occurred in response to perceptions that women were gaining a form of equality. The backlash this time around is taking the form of a resurgence of the men’s rights movement, and also in the cries of ‘#notallmen’. This is a direct response to the ‘#MeToo’ movement. While feminists are busy seeking gender equality with little time to spare to engage in a discussion about ‘#notallmen’, it is important to reinforce the position that while not all men are violent towards women or support gender inequality, too few are taking responsibility for addressing male behaviour which entrenches inequality, from outright violence against women, to staying silent in the face of sexism, to not sharing domestic work equally. In this way, it does become the problem of, if not all men, at least the great majority of them (Ford 2018). The backlash is evident in the trolling occurring on feminist websites, comments in the media and the rape, violence and death threats made against feminist activists (Gill 2016).

At the organisational level, resistance and the resurgence of backlash takes the form of verbal attacks to gender equality initiatives, including work and family initiatives and affirmative actions (Burke 2005; VicHealth 2018). Even in organisations where managers and employees may be committed to the idea of fairness and equality, backlash can manifest as resistance to the implementation of gender equality or diversity programs because of fear, and a sense of threat to male privilege (Van Buren 1997; Burke 2005, Soklaridis, et. al 2018). Organisational silence or inaction on gender equality is an insidious form of backlash. While human resource professionals and feminist activists work to overcome gender fatigue and backlash, it is crucial to determine exactly what is being sought. The next section considers this issue.

Visions of a gender equitable workplace and how to get there

As Lewis et al. note, ‘(t)here is no consensus about what is it exactly that should be achieved in gender equality change’ (2017, 216, italics in original). Organisations may be committed to gender equality and diversity, however, there is little agreement on what an equitable organisation looks like (Van Buren 1997, my italics). In the research my colleagues and I have conducted, when asked what gender equality ‘looks like’, respondents gave answers such as ‘men and women being treated the same’, or ‘where everyone can work flexibly’. While these are laudable aims, they are partial, and we don’t yet have a vision or the language to talk about what constitutes gender equality (Ely and Meyerson 2000).

Feminist researchers and their allies have amply documented the various approaches to achieving workplace gender equality (see for example, Ely and Meyerson 2000). Male backlash can be ignored; punished; men can be co-opted through having their concerns addressed; and men can be educated about backlash, privilege, discrimination and merit (Burke 2005). Gender fatigue can be addressed through reinvigorating conversations about gender equality. Many public sector agencies are doing this (Williamson and Foley undated). Other initiatives to progress workplace gender equality include sharing stories, leadership and role modelling, and explaining the business case (Chief Executive Women and Male Champions of Change undated; Williamson and Foley undated; Williamson et al. 2018).

All these actions are part of a neoliberal, individualised, and ‘moderate’ feminist approach to securing gender equality (Colley and White 2018; Gill 2016). This approach is typified by the rise of ‘lean-in’ circles, where women gather so they ‘can be unapologetically ambitious. Where we can give voice to our dreams and find the encouragement to start chasing them’ (Lean In 2019). Lean-in circles and other mechanisms aim to change individual women, rather than remove systemic barriers (Gill 2016; Lewis et al. 2017). These campaigns focus on mentoring and increasing the numbers of women on boards, on breaking through the ‘glass ceiling’. However, ‘the cellar is filling up with water, and millions of women and girls and their children are crammed in there, looking up as the flood … inches up to their necks’ (Penny 2014, 6). Women who are determined to break through, however, find they must draw on ‘masculine’ discourses such as individualism, yet are still doomed to fail in their never-ending saga of performing gender at work (Lewis et al. 2017). There are no shortage of solutions for practitioners. These fairly easy measures can help, but they may not change systemic workplace inequalities. To achieve this, we need to think more broadly.

Without wanting to be vague by describing a feminist utopia, gender equitable workplaces will only be possible, as Conley and Page (2015) argue, with ‘an understanding of gendered power and its intersections with other forms of inequality, individual commitment to act on this knowledge and the collective organisation to approach gender equality’ (2015, 114). We might then see workplaces where gender is ‘undone’ (Williamson and Colley 2018) and gender roles are not fixed. Organisational transformation where ‘the gendered world itself is problematized’, can be achieved through gender mainstreaming, where the mainstream is continually questioned (Verloo and Lombardo 2006, 23). As Ely and Meyerson (2000) argue, transformation requires structural change, which involves not only implementing gender equality policies and changing human resource processes to uncover and rectify gender discrimination, but also changing informal work practices and interactions between men and women in the workplace. Reconfiguring the narratives, rhetoric, language, and other symbolic expressions which renew gendered ways of thinking and working is also part of the change process needed.

Such an approach may result in non-hierarchical organisational structures, removed from traditional concepts of power, seniority and other masculinist trappings (Conley and Page 2015). Addressing the way work is allocated and valued (Lewis et al. 2017) will also redo the gender order in organisations. The conception of ‘work’ might be subverted so that it is not the guiding force of our lives, so we really do work to live, not live to work, and the concept of a ‘full-time’ job is considered an anachronism. Lewis et al. (2017) note, however, that it is a rare organisation which is willing to travel down a transformational path. Radical or transformational approaches are unattractive to organisations (Benschop and Verloo 2012), which may be risk averse.

To counter such organisational resistance, researchers recommend that organisations adopt short and long-term agendas, to achieve small, immediate wins, whilst deeper transformations occur (Ely and Meyerson 2000). Undertaking the same human resource processes which have had limited success in progressing gender equality will see the same gender order reproduced. Participative action research which uncovers the processes of gendering within organisations can change both individual behaviours, as well as the processes and structural impediments to gender equality in organisations. As Ely and Myerson state ‘the possibility of transformation exists in a series of experiments, each designed to change a set of social practices that express and hold in place asymmetric gender relations’ (2000, 140). The interventions or experiments equate to a series of small wins, which can resound throughout an organisation and have a cumulative effect.

Conclusions

This short article has considered the resurgence of feminism and the continuation of patriarchy in the forms of a male backlash and gender fatigue. While backlash is an obvious form of resistance to the progression of gender equality, gender fatigue is much more insidious, and arguably, more difficult to address. Just as patriarchy is permeable and ever-changing, so is gender fatigue. Researchers have envisaged what a gender equitable workplace might look like, and how to get there through short and long-term gains to transform workplaces. Organisations will need to be creative in re-imagining gender equitable workplaces, and how this might be achieved. Academics and practitioners have a role to play in ‘the opening of space for invention and imagination as a way of presenting new knowledge’ (Conley and Page 2015, 117). This is the challenge which awaits us.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sue Williamson

Dr Sue Williamson is a Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management at UNSW Canberra, Canberra. She specialises in gender equality in the workplace, focusing on public sector gender equality. She is currently examining how public sector organisations can create and sustain gender equitable, and inclusive cultures. Sue has published widely on this topic and also shares her findings with industry partners and the community.

Notes

  Note: This is an edited version of the 2019 AIRAANZ Presidential address. The author would like to thank Professor Marian Baird and A/Professor Linda Colley for their comments on the draft address, as well as the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on the manuscript.