The European Union (EU), a pioneer in gender equality policies, is moving from predominantly attending to gender inequality, towards policies that address multiple inequalities. This article argues that there are tendencies at EU level to assume an unquestioned similarity of inequalities, to fail to address the structural level and to fuel the political competition between inequalities. Based upon a comparison of specific sets of inequalities (class, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender), this article explores where and how structural and political intersectionality might be relevant. It argues that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to addressing multiple discrimination is based on an incorrect assumption of sameness or equivalence of the social categories connected to inequalities and of the mechanisms and processes that constitute them. Focusing on similarities ignores the differentiated character and dynamics of inequalities. It also overlooks the political dimension of equality goals. Moreover, it has become clear that attention to structural mechanisms and to the role of the state and the private sphere in reproducing inequalities is much needed. The final part of the article presents constructive ideas for a more comprehensive way of addressing multiple inequalities

This article analyzes implementation problems in gender mainstreaming as accentuated by a multi-level setting and assumes that one of the major factors affecting implementation problems is a discursive one. Against this backdrop a methodological approach is presented to study such divergences in policy frames on gender equality. Based upon recent literature, the article first outlines the necessity for a comparative methodology to analyze (gender equality) policy frames, and identifies some major problems in the construction of such methodology. The article then presents and explains Critical Frame Analysis as a promising methodological approach for studying and comparing the framing of gender inequality as a policy problem across Europe in a systematic way.

This paper uses fuzzy-set ideal type analysis to assess the conformity of European leave regulations to four theoretical ideal typical divisions of labour: male breadwinner, caregiver parity, universal breadwinner and universal caregiver. In contrast to the majority of previous studies, the focus of this analysis is on the extent to which leave regulations promote gender equality in the family and the transformation of traditional gender roles. The results of this analysis demonstrate that European countries cluster into five models that only partly coincide with countries’ geographical proximity. Second, none of the countries considered constitutes a universal caregiver model, while the male breadwinner ideal continues to provide the normative reference point for parental leave regulations in a large number of European states. Finally, we witness a growing emphasis at the national and EU levels concerning the universal breadwinner ideal, which leaves gender inequality in unpaid work unproblematized.

This article measures one of the foundational texts of gender mainstreaming, namely, the final report of the Group of Specialists on Mainstreaming (Council of Europe 1998) against theoretical concepts of displacement and empowerment. While the Council of Europe process approach is shown to be a fundamental "displacing" asset, there are important shortcomings, such as its consensualist premise, lack of space for oppositional politics, and general technocratic understanding of gender mainstreaming, hindering empowerment. The ambivalence of its articulation of the goal of gender equality is particularly problematic in view of the logic of the dual agenda in gender mainstreaming. More explicit power analyses are highly needed.

Currently, gender mainstreaming is presented as bringing new élan to gender equality policies. Gender mainstreaming is a gender equality strategy that aims to transform organizational processes and practices by eliminating gender biases in existing routines, involving the regular actors in this transformation process. In this article, we question the aspirations of gender mainstreaming. Can gender mainstreaming escape the genderedness of organizations; can it genuinely effect change, or does it inevitably become compromised? Our analysis of a case project within Human Resource Management in the Ministry of the Flemish Community in Belgium shows that gender mainstreaming does indeed bring about changes, but that it does not break down the genderedness of organizations substantially. While gender mainstreaming invokes an image of cooperation between equal parties that pursue a dual agenda of business needs and feminist goals, our analysis shows that crucial power differences between those parties determine the outcome. The complex social dynamics of gender mainstreaming entail compromises in the context of these power differences, which seriously hinder the transformative and innovative potential of gender mainstreaming.