Debating gender equality in 2024

This article was originally published as a recap of a debate on gender equality held on March 9, 2020 at Northwestern University in Qatar. It was updated in April 2024 to include more conversations we’ve hosted about gender and equality. 

What do debates about gender equality look like in 2024? 

At Doha Debates, we debate differently. Unlike Oxford-Union-style debates that present arguments for and against an issue, we look for common ground among disparate—even polarizing—viewpoints. We’ve hosted more than 25 debates and discussions on topics related to gender equality, including pay equality, access to education and gender equality in sports like basketball and soccer. 

We’ve debated whether masculinity is in crisis, took a behind-the-scenes look at the negotiations for equal pay for the US Women’s National Soccer Team, hosted a town hall with Malala Yousafzai about girls’ and women’s education in Afghanistan and brought in global experts to debate whether enforcing gender quotas could accelerate equality.

Within these conversations, you’ll find a wide spectrum of perspectives and opinions from people all over the world. We invite you to watch, listen and read, and to challenge the way you think about gender equality.

What does “gender gap” mean?

The World Economic Forum (WEF), which publishes an annual global gender gap report, defines the gender gap as the difference in parity between men and women across four dimensions: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment. 

In 2019, several studies estimated that it would take another 100 years to close the gender gap. In 2024, it was estimated that it will take closer to 140 years to close the gender gap, thanks in part to setbacks in girls’ and women’s education during the early days of the pandemic. 

Are women better off than men in any measurements of parity?

In the WEF global gender gap report, measurements of differences in equality largely favor men. But on our 2023 Doha Debates Podcast episode “Modern men: Is masculinity in crisis?”, host Joshua Johnson moderated a debate between two guests who cited different findings.

Richard Reeves, president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, said that men are struggling with their mental health. He pointed to a rise in suicide rates, which the World Health Organization reports are twice as high for men. At the same time, he said, historically male-dominated jobs like farming and manufacturing are disappearing. 

Dr. Barbara Risman, editor-in-chief of Gender & Society, interpreted those facts differently: “I don’t think that what we’re seeing is a crisis of men or masculinity, at least in the US.” She reframed the issue as one of economics, not gender—an “economic crisis of the post-industrial capitalist world” that affects working class people who aren’t college-educated. 

To add further perspective to this debate, Doha Debates ambassador Jannatul Mawa, from Bangladesh, challenged Reeves’ assertion that the term “toxic masculinity” is an unhelpful term, arguing that it is important to identify and call out harmful behaviors and their effects on women. Although Reeves “completely agreed” that using clear, specific language is important to call out bad behaviors, he believes that associating the word “toxic” with a strong identifier like “masculinity” potentially drives men away from constructive conversation around those behaviors.

Can feminist foreign policy close the gender gap?

In November 2023, German former politician Sawsan Chebli encouraged an audience of students and other young people to consider feminist foreign policy as a means of achieving gender equality. Chebli spoke at the Doha Debates Town Hall Rise of the Rest: Who should lead in a multipolar world? along with Jon B. Alterman, Wadah Khanfar and moderator Femi Oke. 

In the context of this conversation about shifting global power, Chebli argued that embracing feminist foreign policy does not advance female superiority, but parity. “It’s not only [that] we want to have women being the next leaders, because women are not the better people. We’re not better human beings,” she said. “But if we have half of the world population [at] the table, the result is going to be a better one, because it’s more inclusive. And we need men in order to adopt feminist foreign policy.”

She also cautioned those who might balk at the word “feminist”: “Don’t misunderstand the word ‘feminist.’ Feminist foreign policy is deeply anti-colonial. It puts the individual, rather than the nation-state, as the main reference point of security.”

Would quotas contribute to gender equality?

In a March 2020 debate in Doha, three women considered whether establishing gender quotas—for example, mandating that a certain percentage of government workers have to be women—could accelerate equality. As the three speakers established their positions, it was clear that finding common ground among them was going to be a tall order. 

Randa Abdel-Fattah, a novelist, lawyer and human rights advocate from Australia, called for gender quotas that also accounted for intersectionality. She argued that, for too long, we’ve approached the problem of gender equality as though it’s based on a single axis of oppression. The reality is that we must disrupt both gender and racial inequalities. Meanwhile, American writer and scholar Christina Hoff Sommers strongly opposed gender quotas, claiming they are demeaning to women and that gender equality must happen organically. Ayishat Akanbi, a cultural commentator, artist and stylist based in London, took the middle ground, arguing that quotas could be a strong short-term solution, but that the real goal must be to create a society where they aren’t needed.

Abdel-Fattah pointed out how a complex issue like gender inequality can’t be solved by looking through a narrow, limited lens: “[I am] unapologetically upfront about the need to disrupt not only gender hierarchies, but equally, racial hierarchies.” Affirmative action is already being used as the default, she argued—and it’s given us a world in which academia and corporate leadership are dominated by white men, who then hold the keys to the most social, economic and political power. 

Used in the right manner, intersectional quotas could help close the gender gap without further marginalizing people of color, she said. And intersectionality is essential to give women and people of color the opportunity to transform and revitalize knowledge production, academia and other key sites of power.

Akanbi countered that “if we don’t like gender quotas, as many of us do not, then we have to be active in building a world where they are unnecessary.” Quotas might seem like a no-brainer in a world of gender strife and ideological mayhem, she argued, but they are likely to cause tension among colleagues—especially if you believe your colleagues think you’re “a tick on a diversity checklist.” Being tokenized in this way adds the burden of feeling like a spokesperson for your gender, rather than feeling free to express your individual viewpoints.

She also noted that gender equality must not be relegated only to boardrooms and academia, because otherwise we care more about power than we do equality. Plus, she said, there’s a societal benefit to men entering spaces historically overrepresented by women. Akanbi closed by saying that although quotas may sometimes work, we need a more holistic approach that includes a radical reorganization of society and a serious rethinking of traditional gender roles.

Sommers opened by maintaining a strong belief in gender equality—but just as strongly, she denounced quotas as the means to that end. Citing a 2018 Economist article that looked at a decade’s worth of corporate gender quotas in Norway, Sommers said that there is no evidence that these quotas work. In less prosperous, non-democratic societies, quotas “are doing actual harm” because they pull talented women “out of mainstream society, where they are desperately needed, into the government”—where, she says, they are forced to be silent, creating a veneer of equality. She gave the example of Rwanda’s parliament, which is 60 percent women, contending that this, in fact, works against them. In sum, she argued, quotas are ineffective, harmful and send the wrong message to women. And although there is no fixed solution to gender inequality, progress will come out of free expression and discourse.

See how connector Dr. Govinda Clayton found common ground among these three positions.