Does cost come before gender equality?

(Source: ABC News)

Recent surveys have revealed most Australians still starkly oppose the “Equal Crossings” initiative which fostered the installation of 10 female traffic lights throughout Melbourne’s CBD. European countries have gained public support for similar initiatives, so why are Australians so concerned about promoting gender equality at a street-level?

The apolitical organisation Committee for Melbourne were hoping to “promote gender equality, reduce unconscious bias and stimulate public discussion in a highly visible way” on International Women’s Day this year by replacing 10 ‘walking man’ traffic signals with skirt-wearing ‘walking woman’ signs. They were undoubtedly successful in sparking discussion – but not in the positive way they were hoping.

On March 7, Australians woke to the news that the Committee for Melbourne would begin trialling their “Equal Crossings” initiative by installing female traffic signals outside Flinders Street station. ABC news quickly revealed that installing six lights had an average cost of $8,400 which caused public outrage. Online news publications were quick to jump onto the significant costs of re-installing pedestrian signals, prompting the Australian public to harshly critique the gendered lights on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit.

Victorian Governor Linda Dessau immediately fought against the cynics: “Some people have expressed a little scepticism wondering whether its gesture politics rather than having any real substance … but these symbols are a practical and meaningful way to demonstrate that in fact 50 per cent of our population is female and should therefore also be represented at the traffic lights”.

These comments only exacerbated public discontent, with many suggesting female representation on traffic lights is not a concern in the feminist agenda. One Twitter user stated: “Over 42,000 Australian women are homeless while we spend thousands to include female figures in the Melbourne traffic lights…#ridiculous”.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the traffic lights “received mixed response[s]”, however recent independent surveys have revealed that a majority of the public were unhappy and unconvinced by the campaign. Almost 50 per cent of respondents agreed that female traffic signals were a waste of money and the initiative was a poor attempt to promote gender equality while just over 8 per cent of respondents were happy with the initiative.

Matt Gaffney, General Manager of Committee for Melbourne’s Future Focus Group – the faction responsible for Equal Crossings – admitted that the amount of criticism was unprecedented. “There were various expectations that some would have a strong view, but we probably underestimated the veracity of some of it.”

So why did such a large proportion of the Australian public slam a campaign that promotes feminism and gender parity?

Many online publications failed to emphasise that the costs were subsidised by Victorian-based private electrical company, Camlex Electrical and the Committee for Melbourne which has ties with almost 120 large Australian businesses and organisations such as Telstra, ANZ, BHP Billiton and CSIRO. Australian news organisations’ failure to notify their readers that taxpayer money was not used for the initiative may have been the cause for a small percentage of the public’s dissent, however, this would not be the core reason why so many were so strongly opposed to the campaign.

Most of the complaints voiced on Twitter claimed that the Equal Crossings was a “waste of money” and a “non-issue” and that costs could have been allocated to more relevant aspects of gender inequality such as the gender pay gap and violence against women.

Professor Louise Edwards specialises in Asian and gender studies at UNSW and suggests that complaints such as these are all too common when the public is faced with change. “People don’t really feel comfortable with the change and vote that it’s a waste of money. It’s just a furphy. The amounts of money involved aren’t that huge compared to the [annual government] budget.

“It’s very true that there are causes that are more urgent like women’s refuges and the Safe Schools program - these things can have a really big long-term impact if we throw more money at them, but street crossing signs are a public thing that we all see and I think they would make a difference,” says Professor Edwards of the lights.

The UNSW professor states that unconscious bias occurs “when people make decisions on who is the most appropriate person for a job or a post and they’re not aware of the fact that they might be adopting a patriarchal view”. The Future Focus Group within the Committee for Melbourne suggest that the “male” figure signifies unconscious bias on our city streets because it immediately disregards the female sex.

“Unconscious bias is something that has been identified more in the last few years, people are much more aware now of not discriminating against women, minorities or people of different classes … and what we’ve found over the last few years is that nothing much is changing and the bias is still there, the prejudice and discrimination continues at pace because of what is likely to be manifested as unconscious bias.”

Not-for-profit, volunteer-run organisation the Sydney Feminists felt that the public’s response was a perfect example of unconscious bias at work. Tessa Barratt, co-founder of Sydney Feminists, claimed there were many reasons why people reacted negatively: “Unconscious bias was a main cause for such discontent and internalised misogyny. I think it may have bewildered people, either because they don’t see the reason for it because they are unaware of how sexist society still is, or because they do know and feel other areas need to be addressed more urgently.

“Not all reactions were anti-feminist in nature. There was a diverse set of interpretations and responses … When spending is going into anything specifically ‘female’, there is almost always a big reaction to it as opposed to money going into ‘human’ enterprises, with male being seen as the default for human, and this is an unconscious bias we all share.”

Politicians in Dortmund, Germany have made similar attempts to achieve a 50 per cent quota of female traffic lights and in Vienna and London, authorities have installed LGBT-themed traffic lights much to the content of the general public. Around 50 traffic lights were altered in June 2016 as a feature of London’s Pride Festival while Austrians welcomed 120 new LGBT traffic lights as a timely addition to hosting Eurovision in 2015.

Spain, New Zealand and Sweden have also implemented similar campaigns not just to promote gender equality and bring awareness to the LGBTQIA+ communities, but to increase the safety of pedestrians by drawing their attention to the unique traffic signals. British, Spanish and Austrian governments have made their unique crossing signs permanent and in Germany, the famous “Ampelmännchen” are being increasingly accompanied by “Ampelfrauen” at intersections – despite previous government setbacks and some public backlash.

“In Wellington, New Zealand they have a variety of historical figures in the traffic light frame such as suffragettes, and it’s a feature of the city … [the lights] could be a neat little marketing ploy or an attention-getting ploy,” says Professor Edwards.

However, it seems that Australia will not follow suit: “There have been no further installations. There wasn’t any more envisaged in such a short period of time,” says Gaffney. “However, the ethos was that any further installations would either have funding provided to them or they would be installed at the end of the life cycle for a particular set of traffic lights.”

This comes as no surprise: 65 per cent of survey respondents felt Melbourne’s lights did not represent gender inequality, while 18 per cent disagreed and 15 per cent were unsure of the lights’ effectiveness.

Many anonymous respondents made their opposition to the lights very clear: “In my opinion stick figures are pretty gender neutral” … “Honestly the last thing I’m going to think about when crossing the street is whether or not the traffic light is a man or a woman” … “I identify streetlights as a binary system which tells you to stop or go; not some systematic suppression of women”. Others appreciated the premise driving the Committee for Melbourne’s Equal Crossings however they felt funding could have been allocated elsewhere to combat unconscious bias and inequality.

20-year-old Media and Communications student Georgia Carniato felt concerned that the Committee’s enthusiastic initiative would not live up to its purpose: “Maybe they won’t be able to update all the lights [in Melbourne’s CBD] so it won’t be equal after all,” however, she was open to the cause: “Financially, maybe people were concerned but if it’s [the Committee for Melbourne’s] money being spent to change the lights, then why not?”

Herald Sun writer Susie O’Brien likened the Equal Crossings initiative to “political correctness gone mad” and suggested the campaign follows on from “moves to ban terms like Miss and Mrs”, all the while consolidating that she is a “proud feminist”. Survey respondents followed in her steps, with 61 per cent agreeing the initiative was “political correctness gone mad”.

However, the Committee for Melbourne were aware that “walking man” traffic signals do not directly offend women – the apolitical organisation was only attempting to bring light to gender inequality at a public level which many other countries have successfully done in the past. The Committee were not attempting to push an agenda on society that saw the ‘walking man’ as symbolically male, rather they were bringing gender equality to a simplified level to spark discussion and ultimately make Melbourne a more “liveable” city. So can we really claim that the apolitical group’s initiative was “political correctness gone mad”?

Professor Edwards supports Equal Crossing’s aim to reduce unconscious bias and gender inequality: “You’ve got to start wherever you can. People think that gender equality is achieved and done and that we don’t need to do more. They created some controversy with these traffic light crossings and it’s good that people are talking about it, otherwise it’s actually quite hard to get publicity for these issues.”

The Sydney Feminists regard Equal Crossings a success: “We’re all for improving the representation of women in media and other areas, so this is a step in that direction, albeit a controversial one for many reasons … We feel educating people, young people especially, about the ways sexism and gender stereotyping affect and limit them is so important.”