FEM-ABLE
Italy
Good practices on implementation of gender equality strategies
THEMATIC CARDS GAME
MOTION DEBATE ON GENDER QUOTAS
THEMATIC CARDS GAME
- DESCRIPTION
- IMPLEMENTATION STEPS/METHOD
- IMPACT ACHIEVED
- STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED
- RESOURCES REQUIRED
- CHALLENGES FACED
- LESSONS LEARNED
- POTENTIAL FOR REPLICATION
The thematic card game is an informal and collaborative activity designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas and foster collective solutions within the political arena.
The topics covered were drawn from the research phase conducted at the start of the FEM-ABLE project and reflected in the national report, ensuring that the themes discussed were grounded in real-world findings and context-specific realities.
*Initially, the activity was conceived to be played on a Snakes and Ladders board, symbolising the ups and downs of women’s political participation. However, to better align with the institutional setting where it would be implemented, the concept was adapted to a more formal approach using thematic cards
Participants were introduced to a set of cards structured around key themes identified during the research phase. These themes reflect both challenges and opportunities in relation to women’s participation in politics, as highlighted in the national report. The deck was divided into the following thematic clusters, each containing a “CHALLENGE” (SFIDA) card and an “OPPORTUNITY” (OPPORTUNITÀ) card:
- Gender Bias & Stereotypes
- Societal Attitudes & Cultural Norms
- Role Models
- Double Standard & Scrutiny
- Career and Private Life Balance
- Intersectionality
- Media Influence
- Systemic Barriers
Participants were each given a card to discuss. The participant with the “Challenge” card started the discussion by reflecting on the assigned topic for 5 minutes. The facilitator then linked the discussion to the corresponding “Opportunity” card, ensuring a logical flow, and encouraging participants to build on each other’s insights.
This interactive process created a dynamic exchange where participants explored different aspects of women’s political engagement through collective dialogue. For example, a participant might discuss a “Challenge” card on “Societal Attitudes & Cultural Norms,” which would then be followed by a connection to an “Opportunity” card on “Creating support networks and promoting gender equality.” This method encouraged deeper exploration and active debate.
- Participants gain awareness of the barriers women face in entering the political arena.
- They develop an understanding of how priority areas of intervention are interconnected, revealing the structural nature of segregation.
- The exercise highlights the benefits of integrating non-formal methods into formal institutional contexts.
Professionals in the local political arena, policy-makers, and promoters of women’s participation in governmental and institutionalized settings. It can easily be adapted to other contexts and implemented with diverse groups, such as the general public, students, educators, and more.
- Set of cards divided into two decks: Challenges and Opportunities
- Snakes and ladders board (in an informal setting)
Time management presents a challenge, requiring careful facilitation to ensure all topics are adequately covered and all participants have enough time to discuss the topic assigned.
Working with institutional stakeholders and policy-makers does not necessarily result in resistance to non-formal methodologies. Guiding participants out of their comfort zones with innovative approaches generates valuable discussions and outcomes.
The practice offers strong potential for scalability, as it allows participants to self-reflect on systemic dynamics within their own national or local contexts. The method is adaptable and can be tailored to different professional and cultural environments, making it suitable for broader applications.
MOTION DEBATE ON GENDER QUOTAS
- DESCRIPTION
- IMPLEMENTATION STEPS/METHOD
- IMPACT ACHIEVED
- STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED
- RESOURCES REQUIRED
- CHALLENGES FACED
- LESSONS LEARNED
- POTENTIAL FOR REPLICATION
A motion debate focused on the implementation of mandatory gender quotas in all Italian political institutions.
Participants were divided into 2 groups, each tasked with defending opposing positions—either for or against the quotas. The debate aimed to engage university students and researchers in critical discussions about gender equality in politics, offering an interactive way to explore the topic by adopting different perspectives. The debate also allowed participants to develop their argumentation skills, practicing how to present and defend a position, even if they did not personally agree with it.
*Alternatively, if the group of participants is large, a third group can be included to act as an impartial jury that listens to and evaluates the two debating groups. The jury assesses the quality of the arguments, adherence to the rules, and the effectiveness of the presentations.
Participants are briefed on the debate format and provided with background information on the issue of gender quotas. Roles (either for or against the motion) are then assigned randomly to the groups —one supporting the introduction of mandatory gender quotas and one opposing it.
*If the development of the argument seems stuck or if students are not very familiar with the topic, you can provide suggestions with pro/against arguments, such as:
Pro arguments
Balanced representation: Ensures equal participation from all genders.
Overcoming structural barriers: Helps address systemic obstacles that hinder equal representation.
Improved quality of political decisions: Diverse perspectives lead to more well-rounded decision-making.
Successful international examples: Draw on models from countries where gender quotas have proven effective.
Temporary measure: A transitional tool to achieve long-term gender equality.
Against:
Meritocracy and competence: Quotas may overlook merit in favour of gender.
Risk of tokenism: Candidates may be seen as symbolic, and not valued for their skills.
Reverse discrimination: Quotas could be perceived as unfair to other groups.
Cultural problem, not legislative: Gender imbalance is more deeply rooted in cultural norms than in-laws.
Natural representation: Suggests that representation should emerge organically in a meritocratic system.
Each group is given some time to prepare their arguments, drawing on existing research and their reflections. They then are given 2-5 minutes to present their case – which is controlled by a stopwatch. The other group then respond to the arguments from the oppositor using the same time. Followed by a second round for rebuttals and a closing statement from both sides.
A moderator ensures that the debate follows the rules, gives equal speaking time to both sides, and encourages constructive dialogue.
Participants are briefed on the debate format and provided with background information on the issue of gender quotas. Roles (either for or against the motion) are then assigned randomly to the groups—one supporting the introduction of mandatory gender quotas and one opposing it.
Each group is given time to prepare their arguments, drawing on existing research and personal reflections. They are then allowed 2-5 minutes to present their case, which is timed by a stopwatch. The opposing group responds within the same time limit. This is followed by a second round of rebuttals and closing statements from both sides.
A moderator ensures the debate follows the rules, provides equal speaking time to both sides and encourages constructive dialogue. After the debate, the jury convenes to discuss the following considerations: the quality of the arguments presented, the effectiveness of counter-arguments, communication skills and adherence to debate rules. The jury then announces the winning group and explains the reasons for their decision.
Participants are then encouraged by the moderator to reflect on what has been discussed. They are invited to share their thoughts on the activity. What was learned about political participation and gender equality? Were any arguments presented that made them reconsider their initial position?
The debate enhanced participants’ critical thinking and argumentation skills while deepening their understanding of the complexities surrounding gender quotas in politics. It also fostered engagement with gender equality issues and provided a platform for students to reflect on how policies affect institutional representation. The exercise promoted greater awareness of both the benefits and potential drawbacks of such policies, allowing participants to critically evaluate their positions.
University of Palermo students and doctoral candidates, particularly from gender studies and political science programs.
Professors and academic experts, including historians and gender studies specialists.
CESIE, which organized and facilitated the event.
Debate moderator and facilitators.
Background materials and research on gender quotas and political representation.
Chronometer.
Some participants found it difficult to defend a position they did not personally agree with, which led to initial hesitation in the debate..
Managing time effectively within the debate structure to allow for comprehensive discussions while maintaining momentum.
Randomly assigning positions forced participants to think outside their comfort zones, leading to more nuanced reflections on the topic.
Providing clear guidelines and resources beforehand is essential to ensure that participants feel confident and prepared.
The debate format is an effective tool for raising awareness and fostering engagement with complex social issues, such as gender equality in political representation.
The motion debate format can be easily replicated in other educational or professional settings. It encourages critical reflection and fosters diverse perspectives, making it a valuable method for exploring key societal challenges. This model could be adapted to different contexts by selecting topics relevant to the local community.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.