Public policies in most cases are centered around men’s interests which are perceived as gender-neutral or universal. Neutral nature of policies is caused by the lack of recognition of differences between men and women. In contrast, “the model of EO which underlines mainstreaming policies is based upon the notion of the politics of difference” (Rees, 1998, p. 40). Nevertheless, instead of creating tools for women to fit to male institutions, mainstreaming offers transformational change, and this is one of the main advantages of this approach towards equality. It implies evaluation of all policies and practices, in order to see how gender is considered, if at all, and how it affects men and women. The truth is that gender is everywhere: in merit systems, hiring policies, decision making processes etc. Mainstreaming equality places women’s needs and experiences at the center of policymaking. To make that structural change successfully, the change needs to be long-term. The persistent and lasting nature of the mainstreaming approach (Rees, 1998, p. 40) is the second advantage of it.
I would like to give an example of how the mainstreaming approach is applied to urban public policy. There are several studies that prove cities’ policies and urban planning as androcentric and not gender-neutral (Kern, 2020; Criado-Perez, 2019; Matrix Book Group, 1984). The main reason for this is the strict division between public and private spheres which were consolidated within rapid urbanization and the development of capitalism in the 19th century. (Gyáni, 1994, p. 86). In public consciousness, private life was mainly associated with women and domestic work, the public life - with men and productive work (1994, p. 86). It is still true to a certain extent in many places even today and therefore some cities decided to introduce a transformational change by using gender mainstreaming as an approach to achieve gender equality in urban life.