'Organizations make broad declarations of support for gender equity that actually promise nothing,' says academic following recent cabinet changes by Mark Carney
When Prime Minister Mark Carney announced his first cabinet in March 2025, feminist organizations swiftly condemned his removal of the Ministry for Women and Gender Equality (WAGE).
Responding to pressure, Carney reinstated the WAGE ministry, and has achieved parity in his cabinet. But while women hold almost half of all cabinet positions, five out of six of the most powerful decision-making ministers are men.
As noted in The Conversation, Carney’s cabinet picks could be perceived as “gender washing” – essentially, a company engaging in performative gender parity actions as opposed to meaningful ones.
“Gender washing, much like ‘greenwashing,’ ‘femvertizing,’ and ‘wokewashing,’ is a corporate strategy organizations deploy to give the illusion that they are meaningfully engaging in efforts to overcome gender inequity, while substantively doing nothing,” explains Meaghan Furlano, PhD candidate in sociology at Western University.
“It is essentially an advertising ploy for an organization that wants to ‘look good’ on hot topics of the day, be it gender or racial inclusion.”
Women as tokens
In an open letter signed by almost 300 signatories, Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights said the elimination of a dedicated WAGE minister sent “a troubling message about the current government's priorities,” adding that the Canadian economy depended on feminist policies.
“Gender equality is not an afterthought; it is the backbone of a strong economy and resilient society.”
Furlano explains that genuine equity initiatives differ from gender washing by emphasizing action over image.
“While gender washing only includes women or gender-diverse individuals as ‘tokens,’” she says, “genuine efforts involve cultivating an entirely new organizational climate that challenges the harmful attitudes that make workplaces uncomfortable or unsafe for certain groups of employees.”
Signs of gender washing often public — and vague
Critics of Carney’s cabinet reshuffle noted that while gender parity was restored numerically, men still hold five of the six most powerful posts, prompting concerns that the adjustments were symbolic rather than structural.
Similar patterns often occur in corporate environments, where declarations of equity may mask stagnation in real progress – in fact, Furlano says these public statements can be a signal to HR that gender washing may be in play in their organizations.
“Some common signs to look out for are organizations that make broad declarations of support for gender equity that, upon close or not so close inspection, actually promise nothing,” says Furlano.
“Often these declarations occur on designated celebratory days, like International Women's Day. But they may also arise as a Band-Aid solution to a public relations crisis.”
She adds that relying on stories of individual achievement is another red flag. “I am also cautious of ‘individual success stories’ or ‘individual spotlights,’ especially those that include pictures and personal quotes, as organizations may be banking on the emotional, feel-good ethos of these posts to curtail the consumer's critical thinking.”
Gender washing as response to DEI backlash
When Carney first assembled his cabinet, the backlash underscored how political and public support for diversity initiatives can fluctuate depending on leadership priorities – the same dynamics apply in corporate environments, Furlano points out, where DEI strategies are sometimes adopted more for trendiness than for genuine organizational change.
Attaining gender parity means examining an organization’s true motivation for DEI, she adds: “What motivates the introduction of DEI policies in the first place? Is an organization enacting these policies just because they’re trendy or because they actually believe in them?”
Furlano points to recent political events in the United States and close to home as possible influences of DEI backpedaling and possible gender washing practices.
“We've seen many organizations start to distance themselves from DEI following the re-election of Donald Trump and the rise of ‘anti-woke’ politics,” she says.
“We've also seen a lot of corporate sponsors pull out of supporting Toronto's Pride Parade. All this begs the question: Were these policies or initiatives ever more than lipstick feminism?”
Building lasting change for diversity
The controversy surrounding Carney’s first cabinet announcement led to demands for legal reforms, such as amending the Parliament of Canada Act to mandate gender-balanced cabinets.
Canada has fallen to 70th place in the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s ranking for women in federal government, and its most recent federal election saw fewer women elected and running than in past years.
Furlano stresses the need for structural change at the organizational level to prevent gender washing in the private sector.
“To prevent gender washing, organizations need to make structural changes. They need to demonstrate action, not performative gesturing,” she says.
“Potential courses of action might look like implementing policies around parental leave, flexible work arrangements, paying a living wage, and eradicating the gender wage gap. Organizations should also track the impact of these policies and revise them accordingly if they are found to be ineffective or exacerbate gender inequity.”
Monitoring the outcomes of gender parity initiatives is essential, Furlano explains, as even strategies with good intentions can falter if they’re not well-supported.
“It's also often the case that well-meaning initiatives, like menstrual leave, can backfire if not supported by meaningful, long-term data monitoring and comprehensive education … men should not be clustered in positions of power while women and gender-diverse individuals fill out the bottom ranks.”
