Will feminism survive Dutton, Trump and the free market machine?

I’m a big fan of the F-word. I was a feminist way before Beyonce, long before “Time’s Up”, and never more than after I gave birth to four daughters, who give new fuel to the F-word in the face of a world on fire.

But feminism seems to be getting a bad rap, or at least to have taken a back seat, lately. Because the free world and F-cause have been a tad distracted with other matters.

Like, say, the dark circus of Donald Trump and his snakes-and-ladders tariff spats. Or Teslas. Or geopolitical card games. Or Peter Dutton’s WFH walkbacks and caravan capers.

All this noise means you may have missed the recent report from Ipsos, entitled “Progress and Polarisation: Global Attitudes Toward Gender Equality in 2025“, which showed that, on average, Australians have become decidedly less supportive of feminist principles.

In the poll, when presented with the statement: “When it comes to giving women equal rights with men, things have gone far enough in my country”, nearly 43% of Australians agreed. Notably, 51% of men and 35% of women made up this group. Based on a global average of 31 countries, 53% of people agree with this statement.

Maybe we have to look to the brave next generation as our crusaders for human equality? Nope, not them either. Ipsos’ polling showed that globally, 60% of gen Z men agree with the statement “we have gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men”. And 40% of gen Z women agree.

If the majority believe we have already gone far enough in the fight for equality, then are we femmos done already? Is this as good as it gets? Time to pop on the bras, Sheilas! Piff the white suits. Capital-F feminism has had its day. Soz we overreached.

Well figure this: recent data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) shows that only one in five employers in Australia report a gender pay gap that sits within target ranges, with 50% of employers having a gender pay gap larger than 12.1% in favour of men and women earning, on average, just 78 cents to every dollar earned by men. This translates to an annual shortfall of roughly $28,425 per woman. Try explaining that to the daughters.

Now consider Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s recent misstep (there are many). He initially announced wanting to force public service employees back into the office, ending work from home (WFH) policies which benefit so many women and families. Anthony Albanese called it a “lazy” policy, which is fair given it’s been freely lifted from the magic spells in the DOGE playbook and a deadset copycat move following the Trump administration’s termination of remote working arrangements for federal agencies in January.

While it seems that Dutton has — slightly — woken up about his stance on WFH (no doubt due to the fact that an election will happen before May 17 and also because Labor very helpfully pointed out that the harsh WFH policy shows the Coalition forgot that women might, like, actually vote), he is surely not yet woke.

While the Coalition has matched Labor’s $500 million women’s health package, which is designed to improve access to women’s menopause treatments and reproductive medication, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has concurrently been shoulder-tapped to cut back on wasteful public service spending and will run a new Elon-esque “government efficiency” position (Price has already singled out diversity, equity and inclusion — or “DEI” — roles for cuts).

And consider that on a newly launched podcast, when Dutton was asked why DEI was under threat given it represents a tiny portion of the public sector, he promised our country’s female voters there will not be an American-style reversal of women’s rights if he becomes prime minister — but also replied that voters expect the government to spend efficiently during a cost of living crisis.

“We should look at what politicians do as much or probably more than what they say,” he said.

So where exactly are we looking? Inside Justin Hemmes’ powder room?

Wherever you’re looking, Dutton’s initial WFH mandates have understandably been publicly flogged by multiple organisations and Australian unions. They warn that the Coalition leader’s ideas to reduce WFH arrangements in the public sector will hamper women’s job opportunities, drive down productivity and adversely impact the estimated 36% of Australians who currently work from home.

And while the Coalition may have mis-hurled a spear meant only for Canberra, there may also be a wee case of magical thinking, whereby Dutton wants to wind the clock way back (we can’t) to the pre-COVID world (remember that?) to when “just over 20% of people” worked from home, so that Australians, particularly those “who are working hard at the moment” (hands up anyone? You? Me?), know that their tax dollars are being spent efficiently. Presumably, we can then sleep well.

Dutton refuses to admit that his borrowed WFH policy dictates will disproportionately affect women. This is despite the fact that, according to the ACTU, nearly one million more women have found work in the past four years, due in part to an increase in WFH arrangements and Australia’s women’s workplace participation rate lifting from 61% pre-COVID to 63.5% now — the highest level of working women the country has ever seen.

WGEA CEO Mary Wooldridge highlighted at a recent press conference the critical importance of workplace flexibility and WFH initiatives, saying they are “an important enabler for particularly women, but anyone who has parental and caring responsibilities”.

She also went on to say “there is no doubt that enhanced flexible working arrangements [enhance] access to participation in the workforce and to working at the highest possible level to contribute both to the workplace and the economy as a whole.”

Clearly, working women contributing to Australia’s economy is good for everyone. But Dutton’s ill-thought-through WFH declarations and voter-enticing backflips also fly in the face of the current superannuation gap in Australia, which persists because women continue to shoulder the burden of caring responsibilities. This, in turn, sees women over-represented in part-time and flexible (most often WFH) roles, retiring with far less super than their male counterparts, and holding the terrible title of the fastest-growing demographic facing housing insecurity and experiencing homelessness in this country. Again, explain that to the daughters.

When it comes to giving women equal rights to men, things have gone nowhere near far enough in this country. Feminism, a very simple concept, still has a long way to go.

We’ve seen countless women around the globe work relentlessly over eons against systems of oppression, oscillating between outrage and eking out inch-worm wins on progressing equality, only to have those advances ridiculed, repealed or drowned out in the shifting currents of dominant ideologies, political erraticisms or momentary distractions of the day.

But maybe feminism simply isn’t working anymore. Look at where we’ve landed. Will the #tradwife social media-based subculture see a popular return to traditional gender roles, with women prioritising domestic duties and homemaking over careers? Will feminist values survive the broader cultural pushback against the movement from the manosphere? Will Dutton wake up? Will global DEI initiatives continue to be eroded by the noisy broligarchy spouting increasingly aggressive free market ideologies?

The free market isn’t the problem here, per se. The free market can work well when it works well. That means minimal government intervention, free exchange of information and healthy competition driving strong supply and demand flows.

But when the profit motive reigns, free market dynamics pressure both policymakers and corporations to swiftly sideline progressive DEI and feminist initiatives in favor of short-term market gains. Money wins at all costs, even if that’s over hard-won women’s rights.

For example, witness the systematic dismantling of DEI policies and rollback of abortion rights across the USA. These actions are not isolated, but fuelled by a rising tide of global pushback against women’s rights from conservative and fundamentalist groups, reaching from the White House to social platforms to far-right movements gaining traction in Europe and right here in Australia (hello Katter’s Australian Party “quick as you like”).

Note the growing tide of corporate and government bodies viewing “woke” progressive DEI policies as financial liabilities rather than social or economic assets — now watch them shrink away because the global political tides sway them so.

Witness the Coalition’s shifting WFH plans, all in the name of efficiency or tokenistic, swinging vote bait.

And check the corrosive effects of these shifts in political conservatism and free market capitalism which threaten the very bedrock of gender equality and DEI progress across the world.

Among the deafening noise, we risk becoming complacent. As workers, carers, voters, policymakers, everyday citizens and humans, after all, we have a responsibility to keep the F-word up in lights, to challenge regressive policies and to advocate for a future where the fundamental ideals of feminism — equality, justice and empowerment — are upheld for all, and cannot be erased by market forces or the token words of the “momentary masters” of Sagan’s pale blue dot.

In our current moment, where a significant portion of the population believes that progress has “gone too far,” the survival of feminism depends on its ability to adapt, be inclusive, and engage in the economic, political and social debates that continue to shape our world and the human standards we choose to accept.

This is not the time to be silent. This is the time for all who believe in equality to speak out. To speak up. To keep calling out what is in plain sight, and to stay the course in the face of a fucking world on fire. Tell that to your daughters.

Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply