The equality movement in 2025: progress or peril?

It’s only February, but already this year has delivered a sobering reminder of how fragile progress toward gender equality remains. Globally and locally, alarming events highlight not only the persistence of systemic inequities but also the active resistance to dismantling them.

From the erosion of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs in major companies, to social media platforms amplifying harmful narratives, the equality movement faces an uphill battle. If left unchecked, these challenges could jeopardise the strides made in recent decades.

Corporate backslides and the media’s role

The decline in commitment to DEI initiatives in corporate spaces has been one of the most glaring setbacks. Major companies, including Disney and JPMorgan, have changed or deprioritised their DEI programs, citing cost-cutting measures and shifting priorities (Murray & Bohannon 2025). In many cases, these rollbacks are not just about budget constraints but reflect a broader trend of corporations reassessing their commitments to diversity and inclusion in the face of evolving political and economic landscapes.

Even more concerning is the media’s role in amplifying narratives that undermine the legitimacy of DEI efforts. Elon Musk, for example, falsely claimed that diversity initiatives contributed to the scale of the LA wildfires by prioritising inclusivity over competence — a statement that, despite being completely unfounded, was widely reported on without sufficient critique. Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg has openly declared that Meta is “bringing back masculine energy” (Rogan 2025), reinforcing outdated gender norms at a time when workplace inclusion should be expanding, not contracting.

These narratives do more than create PR moments, they shape public perception, fuel resentment, and justify regressive actions. Worse, superficial or performative DEI initiatives can inadvertently foster resentment and scepticism among employees, undermining their intended goals. When DEI efforts are perceived as mere box-ticking exercises without genuine commitment, they may lead to increased hostility toward the very groups they aim to support. A study by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University found that certain DEI training programs can escalate workplace hostility and racial bias, particularly when participants develop a hostile attribution bias, perceiving prejudice where none exists (Zaki 2024).

Additionally, research indicates that DEI initiatives lacking meaningful integration into organisational culture can result in backlash and cynicism, further entrenching systemic inequities (Ray & Melaku 2024).

The dangers of poorly managed DEI efforts are evident in the case of Rio Tinto, where ongoing workplace misconduct found that mismanaged diversity policies had fuelled resentment among male employees, leading to increased workplace bullying of their female colleagues (O’Neill 2024).

Rather than fostering a genuinely inclusive culture, Rio Tinto’s approach to DEI, like many others, appears to have lacked the deep organisational shift required to create sustainable change. Instead of being a pathway to progress, surface-level initiatives that fail to engage employees meaningfully can create division, hostility, and a workplace culture resistant to inclusion.

True progress requires more than hiring quotas and one-off training sessions; it demands structural change that provides real opportunities for underrepresented communities. Companies that genuinely integrate DEI into their operations benefit from greater diversity of thought, more innovative problem-solving, and stronger financial performance. In contrast, those that view inclusion as a compliance requirement rather than a core value not only set themselves up for failure but also contribute to a culture of resistance that slows progress for everyone.

Without embedded values that prioritise fairness, representation, and accountability, DEI efforts risk becoming another corporate trend that fades when challenged. And as long as media platforms continue to amplify harmful narratives without critical scrutiny, we will see more organisations retreat from their commitments — at the cost of genuine workplace equity and, ultimately, a more just society.

The role of social media and the algorithmic amplification of hate

Adding to these challenges is the role of social media platforms in amplifying harmful narratives. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decision to remove fact-checkers from Meta platforms in the name of “free speech” (Booth 2025), has sparked significant concern. Combined with algorithmic designs that prioritise engagement over truth, this move creates fertile ground for misinformation, hate speech, and anti-equality rhetoric.

The ripple effects are chilling. Research from Dublin City University (DCU) revealed that experimental male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were served anti-feminist content within just 23 minutes of engagement. Alarmingly, 76% of videos served after this point promoted anti-equality messaging and the submission of women (Baker et al. 2024).

These platforms are not just passive distributors of information — they actively shape beliefs, reinforce biases, and polarise societies. In the context of gender equality, this leads to greater resistance to change, eroding the foundations for progress in leadership and beyond.

Gender equality is critical for growth

While these challenges are significant, the case for gender equality has never been clearer. Research consistently shows that diverse leadership teams drive innovation, improve decision-making, and deliver better financial results. More importantly, achieving gender equality could unlock billions of dollars for Australia’s GDP (Workplace Gender Equality Agency 2018). It’s not just a moral imperative — it’s a critical component of our nation’s economic growth and resilience.

So what is happening locally that we can celebrate? On Australian soil, we’ve seen positive progress with landmark policies like 26 weeks of paid parental leave with superannuation contributions, set to take effect in July 2025. These changes signal a recognition of the systemic barriers women face and the need for structural reforms to reduce the gender pay gap caused by caregiving responsibilities.

However, policies alone aren’t enough—they must be accompanied by more progressive and flexible work options. Without widespread access to flexibility — regardless of gender — women will continue to bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities, limiting their participation in leadership and the broader workforce. True progress requires us to address not only parental leave but also workplace culture, childcare accessibility, and the entrenched biases that prevent equality from being realised.

The 100% Project’s research, Breaking Dad: Psychological Safety & Men’s Parental Leave (2021), highlights the critical role of workplace culture in enabling men to take parental leave and work flexibly. Without psychological safety, where men feel supported rather than penalised for prioritising family responsibilities, parental leave policies will remain underutilised and gendered caregiving norms will persist. Encouraging men to take leave and work flexibly is essential for redistributing unpaid labour, closing the gender pay gap, and ensuring that workplaces truly support gender equality.

So what now?

With International Women’s Day just around the corner, we’re presented with a timely opportunity to reflect on the progress we’ve made — and the significant work still ahead. Progress in gender equality is not inevitable; it requires sustained commitment, accountability, and action at every level.

Corporations must go beyond symbolic gestures and invest in meaningful DEI initiatives that foster inclusion, transparency, and fairness. Policymakers must hold businesses accountable for creating equitable workplaces. And as individuals, we must challenge harmful narratives, advocate for systemic change, and hold leaders to the promises they make.

So what can you do? Be critical of misinformation, support credible journalism, demand accountability from workplaces and leaders, push for flexible and inclusive work environments, and encourage men to be active participants in the conversation. These actions, taken together, drive real progress.

The challenges are vast, but the potential rewards are greater. By working together to dismantle barriers, amplify diverse voices, and create environments where everyone can thrive, we can ensure that gender equality is not a fleeting aspiration but a sustained reality—for the benefit of all Australians.

At The 100% Project, we believe that gender-equal leadership is not just about fairness—it’s about unlocking Australia’s full potential. Through research, advocacy, and thought leadership, we challenge outdated beliefs and systemic barriers, driving evidence-based change at organisational and policy levels. Join us in shaping a more equitable, inclusive Australia.

List of References

Baker, C, Ging, D, & Andreasen, M 2024, ‘Recommending Toxicity: The role of algorithmic recommender functions on YouTube Shorts and TikTok in promoting male supremacist influencers’, DCU Anti-Bullying Centre – Dublin City University, p. 5.

Booth, R 2025, ‘Meta to get rid of factcheckers and recommend more political content’, The Guardian, accessed 7 January 2025, View.

Joe Rogan (2025) Joe Rogan Experience #2255 – Mark Zuckerberg. View.

Murray, C & Bohannon, M 2025, ‘Banks including JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley reportedly cutting back DEI references—here are all the companies rolling back DEI’. Forbes, accessed 17 February 2025. View.

O’Neill, K 2024, ‘Review finds rape, sexual harassment, bullying still persistent at Rio Tinto’, HR Leader, accessed 13 February 2025. View.

Ray, V & Melaku, T 2024, ‘Countering the Corporate Diversity Backlash’, MIT Sloan Management Review, accessed 8 February 2025. View. Workplace Gender Equality Agency 2018, The Business Case for Gender Equality, p. 3.

Zaki, A 2024, ‘Study suggests DEI may escalate workplace hostility and racial bias’. CFO.COM, accessed 12 February 2025. View.