| 1. |
- Hearn, Jeff, 1947-, et al.
(author)
-
Interrogating violence against women and state violence policy : Gendered intersectionalities and the quality of policy in The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK
- 2016
-
In: Current Sociology. - London : Sage Publications. - 0011-3921 .- 1461-7064. ; 64:4, s. 551-567
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article builds on feminist scholarship on intersectionality to address violence against women, and state policy thereon. It takes up the challenge of analysing the complex, situated and spatial relationship between theorizing on violence against women and state policy on such violence. Drawing on extensive comparative European data, it explores the relations of gender and intersectionality, conceptualized as gendered intersectionalities, by examining how multiple inequalities are made visible and invisible in state policy and debates in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Attention is paid to different forms of gendered intersectionalities in policy, for example, tendencies to degender violence against women. A key aim of the article is to investigate how comparative analysis can be a starting point for assessing if, how and to what extent the inclusion of multiple inequalities could increase the quality of policy, for both reducing and stopping violence, and assisting those subject to violence.
|
|
| 2. |
- Strid, Sofia, docent, 1976-, et al.
(author)
-
Doing Intersectionality in Gender-Based Violence : The Dynamics of Inclusion, Opposition, Coalition and Power
- 2018
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The paper asks how gender-based violence politics is inclusionary or exclusionary of other inequality projects. In understanding violence and gender equality as projects, the paper highlights how the boundaries between policy, implementation, and social movements are blurred, contributing to a new way of analysing gender-based violence politics.The paper distinguishes four different approaches, illustrating them empirically. 1. How are intersectional spaces negotiated, deliberated or struggled over in gender-based violence politics? What constraints and opportunities for intersectional politics are set up and provided by the political and policymaking institutions? Which civil society politics impact on this?2. A focus on “doing intersectionality”. How do institutions and CSOs working on gender-based violence address intersectionality in practice? This prioritizes the question of how intersectionality is done in practice (service provision, cooperation between ‘gender organisations’ and ‘ethnicity organisations’, alliances, coalitions, hierarchies or co-optation.3. To articulate how intersectionality plays out in opposition to gender equality within gender-based violence politics. Who is opposing and/or co-opting intersectionality in gender-based violence politics? How, in what ways, and why? Importantly, here the powerful are kept in sight, especially how the interests of majority groups are represented, created and ‘done’. Who is said to be losing from intersectionality? Are certain groups of women marginalised in certain practices? Is it gender solo that is opposed, or gender+? 4. Therelations between different political domains (Walby 2009)? How is (sensitivity to) intersectionality in the violence domain affected by or affecting, developments in other domains (polity, civil society, economy)? Here social class is brought back into the analysis. The paper concludes by showing how the four approaches, together, provide a more comprehensive understanding of intersectionality and of gender-based violence.
|
|
