초록
▼
1. 서론
가. 연구의 필요성과 목적
□ 「여성발전기본법」이 「양성평등기본법」으로 전면 개정되면서 정책 명칭이 여성정책에서 양성평등정책으로 변경되었고, 이에 따라 새로운 정책 방향과 과제에 대한 기대가 높아지고 있음....
1. 서론
가. 연구의 필요성과 목적
□ 「여성발전기본법」이 「양성평등기본법」으로 전면 개정되면서 정책 명칭이 여성정책에서 양성평등정책으로 변경되었고, 이에 따라 새로운 정책 방향과 과제에 대한 기대가 높아지고 있음.
- 법과 정책 명칭의 변화는 그동안 추진되어 온 여성정책을 둘러싼 사회 환경 및 국민의 정책에 대한 기대의 변화를 반영하는 것이므로 이에 부응할 수 있는 새로운 정책 방향을 모색할 필요가 있음.
□ 이러한 맥락에서 이 연구는 전문가 델파이 조사에 기초하여 양성평등정책을 둘러싼 논의의 쟁점을 분명히 하고, 기존의 여성정책과 단절되지 않으면서 정책 환경과 미래 전망에 부합하는 양성평등정책의 추진 방향을 포괄적인 수준에서 제안하고자 함.
- 이 연구의 결과는 「제2차 양성평등정책기본계획(2018-2022)」 등 중장기 양성 평등정책 추진 과제와 방향 정립을 위한 기초 자료로 활용될 수 있을 것임.
나. 주요 연구내용과 방법
□ 이 연구의 주요 내용은 다음과 같음.
- 첫째, 지난 30년간 여성정책의 성과와 과제를 점검하고 양성평등정책에서 강화되어야 할 정책 방향을 도출함.
- 둘째, 향후 정책 환경의 변화가 양성평등에 미칠 영향을 진단하고 이에 대응하기 위한 정책 의제를 발굴함.
- 셋째, 「여성발전기본법」에서 「양성평등기본법」으로의 개정으로 인해 제기되고 있는 양성평등정책의 개념과 정책 방향을 둘러싼 쟁점을 분석함.
- 넷째, 이상의 논의에 기반하여 양성평등정책의 추진 방향을 제안함.
□ 연구방법
○ 전문가 집담회
- 전문가 델파이 조사문항을 개발하기 위한 사전적 작업으로서 전문가 집담회를 개최함.
○ 전문가 델파이 조사
- 조사목적: 변화된 정책 환경과 미래 전망에 부합하는 양성평등정책 추진방향과 정책과제에 대한 전문가 의견을 수렴하여 정책 방향을 제안하기 위한 자료로 활용함.
- 조사기간: 2016년 7월 29일부터 11월 1일
- 조사방법: 웹조사
- 조사대상: 학계, 정책연구자, 여성단체, 공무원 등 40명
(출처 : 연구요약 p.6)
Abstract
▼
Introduction
Research Background and Purpose
As the Framework Act on Women’s Development was fully amended to the Framework ...
Introduction
Research Background and Purpose
As the Framework Act on Women’s Development was fully amended to the Framework Act on Gender Equality, policy name changed from women’s policy to gender equality policy. Accordingly, there has been a growing expectation of new policy directions and issues. Because changes in laws and policy name reflected changes in the social environment surrounding already-implemented women’s policy and in people’s expectation of the new policy, the government needs to seek new policy directions in response to these changes. Based on the expert Delphi survey, this study aims to clarify debate issues over gender equality policy and to suggest directions of implementing gender equality policy that fit the changing policy environment and future forecast without being cut off from the existing women’s policy.
Research Contents and Methods
The main contents of this study are as follows:
First, it reviews achievements and issues of women’s policy over the past three decades, then identifies policy directions for better implementing gender equality policy.
Second, it assesses the impact of changes in the future policy environment on gender equality and identifies policy agendas to cope with the changes.
Third, it analyzes controversial issues surrounding the concept of gender equality policy and policy directions arising from the amendment of the Framework Act on Women’s Development to the Framework Act on Gender Equality.
Fourth, based on the above-mentioned discussions, this study makes
suggestions for directions of implementing gender equality policy.
The main research method is the expert Delphi survey.
□ Purpose of the survey: to collect opinions from experts about directions of implementing gender equality policy and about policy agendas suited for the changing policy environment and future outlook to be used as supporting data for making suggestions for policy directions.
□ Survey period: July 29, 2016 to November 1, 2016
□ Survey method: Web-based survey
□ Subjects of the survey: 40 experts, including academics, policy researchers, women’s organizations, and government officials.
Achievements and Challenges of Women’s Policy over the Past Three Decades
It was assessed that women’s policy over the past three decades built various laws and systems, and infrastructure for policy implementation and attained quantitative achievements to some degree of expanding women’s participation in the labor market, politics, and public administration, which had been restricted due to gender discrimination. Also, women’s policy expanded the scope of policy recipients by embracing different marginalized women, including single mothers, immigrant women through marriage, female North Korean defectors, and victims of gender-based violence.
Despite these achievements, it was assessed that changes in qualitative terms were still not sufficient enough to break the unequal gender relations, and therefore improvements were needed in the future.
Quantitative expansion of women’s labor participation may contribute to strengthening women’s economic status--currently lower than men’s--only through improvement of the quality of women’s employment, which is a barometer for a fair distribution of economic resources. Women’s entry into male dominated occupations which are limited to a few professional fields should be further expanded. Also, drastic improvements are needed in wage and working conditions of female dominated jobs, such as care
More women should enter political and administrative areas and, in particular, a device should be prepared to guarantee women’s descriptive and substantial representation in political area. Policy means of raising men’s responsibilities for housework and care should be further reinforced as much as policies to expand women’s labor participation. Women’s rights to be safe from gender-based violence should be expanded to encompass threats to violence women experience in daily life, including recentlyincreasing online violence, dating violence, stalking, and misogyny.
Future Environmental Changes and Policy Agendas on Gender Equality Environmental changes in a future society can be largely classified into six areas, including change in population structure, change in family, growth without employment and labor market structure, development of digital technologies, intensification of social conflict, and unification. Based on the six areas, this study examined the impacts of these changes on gender equality. Experts were divided in their opinions about negative and positive impacts of each area on gender equality.
Experts judged women’s employment and policy agenda on jobs as the most urgent. In this regard, they counted “concentration and marginalization of women’s labor in low-paid care and service sectors” and “job insecurity and poverty of women in marginalized groups” among the most urgent policy agenda to be resolved. Next, it was analyzed that policy agendas related to change in family were urgent. Misogyny and violence against social minority groups were selected as very urgent policy agendas, but policy agenda in preparation for unification and policy agenda related to change in digital technologies were found to be relatively less urgent.
This study analyzed issues on gender equality policy from three aspects, including differences between gender equality policy and women’s policy, effects of implementing gender equality policy, and directions of policies for men as policy targets.
First, regarding differences between gender equality policy and women’s policy, the dominant opinion of the experts was that gender equality policy included men in its policy targets. Another opinion was that gender equality policy assumed improvement of women’s poor and vulnerable situations compared to men’s positions. Conversely, a minority opinion was that gender equality policy was different from women’s policy in that the former pursued fundamental changes in unequal gender relations. Still another opinion was that there was no difference between the two policies: because the changes are in name only and their policy goals of “gender equality” have not changed, it is hard to see the two policies as fundamentally different.
Second, regarding the effects of implementing gender equality policy, even if some experts saw that gender equality policy was different from women’s policy because the former included men as policy targets, not all of them regarded this difference as a normatively desirable policy direction. Rather, many experts were concerned that gender equality policy might weaken the existing women’s policy while increasing policy demands for men. Policy demands for men may rise in gender equality policy because this policy is based on the concept of quantitative and mechanical gender equality in a sense that women and men should be equal recipients of gender equality policy. This concept of equality is problematic in that it overlooks women’s status still in disadvantageous positions compared to men’s, thus providing a basis for viewing the existing policies for women as discriminatory against men.
Third, regarding directions of policies for men as policy targets, six policy types were identified, including strengthening men’s role in housework and care, promoting men’s participation in activity for gender equality, spreading men’s awareness of gender equality and gender-equal culture, supporting men’s entry into female dominated occupations, welfare for men, and eradicating discrimination against men. There were differences between the importance of each policy type in gender equality policy and the level of agreement among the experts.
Strengthening men’s role in housework and care and spreading men’s awareness of gender equality and gender-equal culture were policy types with highly assessed importance and high level of agreement among the experts. Promoting men’s participation in activity for gender equality was a policy type with highly assessed importance but low level of agreement due to an opposing opinion that it was difficult for the policy to bring significant outcomes from the aspect of policy effectiveness. Welfare for men was a policy type with low importance and highly differing opinions, although various policy agendas were presented for men in difficult situations, including low-income single or unmarried fathers and middle-aged and elderly men.
Supporting men’s entry into female dominated occupations met with a strong opposition in that the low proportion of men in female dominated occupations was not the result of discrimination against them and that the policy priority was not to support men’s entry into female dominated occupations but to improve the working conditions of female dominated occupations. Eradicating discrimination against men was a policy type that raised merely a theoretical argument that we should deal with not only discrimination against women but also discrimination against men.
Regarding this policy type, issues over men’s mandatory military service were also raised and a lot of arguments against the issues were made too.
However, most of the experts agreed that what was seen as discrimination against men was a controversial issue and even if there was discrimination against men, its policy priority was low because discrimination against women was a more serious issue than discrimination against men.
Suggestions for Directions of Implementing Gender Equality Policy
Concept of Gender Equality
As a concept to replace the concept of quantitative and mechanical gender equality because experts are concerned about its bringing negative effects, a concept of “relational equality” is needed. Gender equality is to resolve the issue of women’s lower status than men’s and to improve the unequal relations between women and men. The concept of gender equality has been reduced to the issue of quantitative and mechanical balance between women and men. If this concept sees equality as the balance of policy benefits between the policy targets of men and women, then the concept of “gender equality as relations” means equality of relations between women and men in all the social sectors. In other words, “gender equality as relations” means changing unequal relations in all the social sectors rather than dividing the policy targets into women and men and equally distributing the policy benefits between them. Directions for Gender Equality Policy
First, the policy to empower women should be redesigned with a focus on the changing policy environment. The focus should be put more on responding to the issues of marginalization of female workers in low-paid care and service sectors, job insecurity and poverty of women in marginalized groups, and poverty of female-headed households.
Second, the issue of violence against women expands to gender-based violence, going beyond the protection of female victims of violence. In this situation, gender equality policy needs to cope with various forms of violence, including not just violence against women but also violence among men, violence against the social minorities, physical violence, and online violence through diverse media. This effort should be made together with a more comprehensive effort not only to build a judicial system to cope with gender-based violence but also to change the violent masculinity, including promoting men’s awareness of gender equality and gender-equal culture and enhancing men’s participation in activity for gender equality.
Third, policies to spread the existing awareness and culture of gender equality should be improved to embrace policy means that enable men to critically reflect on the hegemonic masculinity and fixed gender stereotypes as these are obstacles to gender equal attitude and practice.
Education on gender equality, including “gender equality and men” and “gender stereotypes about men” should be provided for men as direct targets and needs to be changed to help them overcome their stereotypes about masculinity through education from kindergarten to schools at all levels.
Fourth, alleviating the gender division of labor requires a more effective policy because of the problem of care gap due to an increase in dual-earner households. More active policy efforts should be made to reinforce men’s role in housework and care. Various policy means should go together to disseminate diverse masculinity models that equally share housework and care with women rather than simply aiming to increase the rate of using the leave system.
(출처 : Abstract p.144)
