Suchergebnisse

Gegenstand der Analyse ist die mediale Auseinandersetzung um feministische de/konstruktivistische Theorie und Praxis, die 2006/2007 unter der Überschrift 'Gender Mainstreaming' stattfand. Dominiert wurde die Mediendebatte von einer Reihe antifeministischer Veröffentlichungen in überregionalen (Print- und Online-) Zeitungen und Magazinen; auf ihnen liegt das Hauptaugenmerk meiner Untersuchung. Im Zentrum stehen dabei die Einzelanalysen der Artikel "'Gender Mainstreaming' Politische Geschlechtsumwandlung" (FAZ; Volker Zastrow) und "Der neue Mensch" (Der Spiegel; René Pfister), die unter Hinzuziehung des Debattenkontextes (ca. 50 Artikel) untersucht werden. Die Analyse verfolgt die zentralen diskursiven Strategien, mit denen feministische de/konstruktivistische Theorie und Praxis sowie die Protagonist_innen derselben delegitimiert werden und fragt nach den impliziten wie expliziten Aussagen, den zugrundeliegenden gesellschaftlichen Wissensvorräten, Deutungsrahmen und Ausschlüssen. Theoretisch und methodisch wird eine Perspektive entwickelt, die die Mediendebatte einerseits als Kondensat gesellschaftlicher Wissensvorräte und als Spiegel gesellschaftlicher Machtverhältnisse, andererseits als Produzentin von Wissen und Macht analysierbar macht. Die Forschungsfragen und Analyseergebnisse tangieren entsprechend das gesellschaftlich vorhandene Alltags- und wissenschaftliche Wissen über Geschlecht(erverhältnisse) ebenso wie das 'neue' Wissen, das in der Debatte generiert wird, indem Wissen neu kombiniert, akzentuiert, in neue Kontexte gestellt und den Rezipient_innen zugänglich gemacht wird. Mit welchen Bedeutungen wird der Begriff 'Gender' aufgeladen? Nach welchen Kriterien werden feministische Interventionen beurteilt? Welche Subjekte werden abgewertet oder ausgeschlossen (Homosexuelle, Transgender u.a.)? Welches wissenschaftliche und welches Alltagswissen liegt den (antifeministischen/ transphoben/ homophoben) Aussagen zugrunde? Inwiefern haben de/konstruktivistische Geschlechterkonzepte Eingang gefunden in die öffentliche Geschlechterdebatte? Und schließlich auch: Welche Strategien verfolgten jene medialen Artikulationen, die positiv auf feministische Theorie und Praxis und/oder Gender Mainstreaming Bezug nahmen? 'Gender Mainstreaming' fungierte im untersuchten antifeministischen Strang der Debatte als Aufhänger für einen modernisierten Antifeminismus, der sich gegen sämtliche feministische Politiken und Theorien richtete, die (in der Debatte) mit dem Begriff 'Gender' assoziiert wurden. 'Gender' wurde dabei als politisches Stigmawort mit vagem de/konstruktivistischem Gehalt etabliert. Die untersuchten Delegitimierungsstrategien betreffen den Wahrheitsgehalt feministischer Theorie, die Ziele und die Wirkungen feministischer Politik und die Frage nach den Interessen, die mit feministischen Politiken verfolgt werden. Diesen Strategien liegen (unter anderem) Vorannahmen bezüglich Geschlecht und Geschlechtsidentität, Abwertungen und Ausschlüsse bestimmter geschlechtlich oder sexuell markierter Subjekte, spezifische Deutungen feministischer Politiken und Theorien und die Dethematisierung von Machtverhältnissen zugrunde. ; The subject matter of his analysis is the media debate on feminist de/constructivist theory and practice conducted in 2006-07, using the peg 'gender mainstreaming' to hang itself on. The debate was dominated by a number of anti-feminist publications, which my analysis mainly focuses on. The core of the research consists of the analysis of the articles "'Gender Mainstreaming' Politische Geschlechtsumwandlung" (FAZ; Volker Zastrow) and "Der neue Mensch" (Der Spiegel; René Pfister), which are being investigated by also looking at the context of the debate. The analysis aims at the central discursive strategies which are used to delegitimise feminist de/constructivist theory and practice as well as their protagonists and enquires about the implicit and explicit statements of the articles, the basic common knowledge, criterion and exclusions. I devise a theoretical and methodical perspective, which makes the debate analyzable in a double way: On the one hand the media debate can be seen as a 'condensate' of common knowledge and as a mirror of social power structures and on the other hand it functions as a producer of knowledge and power itself. Consequently the research questions allude to the existing common and/or science-based knowledge as well as to the 'new' knowledge which the media debate generates by (re-)combining, (re-)accentuating and (re-)contextualising knowledge. Which denotations/connotations are assigned to the term 'gender'? Which criterion is being mobilized to judge feminist politics? Which subjects (homosexuals, transgendered persons et al.) are degraded or excluded? Which scientific knowledge and which common knowledge form the basis of the (anti-feminist/ transphobic/ homophobic) statements being made? Is there any evidence that de/constructivist perceptions regarding gender found access to the public gender debate? And eventually: Which are the strategies being pursued by those articles that referred to feminist theory and practices affirmatively? Within the anti-feminist thread of the debate, 'gender mainstreaming' served as a peg to hang an updated antifeminism on, that was directed against all feminist politics and theories associated with the term 'gender'. 'Gender' itself was established as a stigmatized political term including a vague de/constructivist meaning. The discursive anti-feminist strategies affect the trueness of feminist thought, the aims and impacts of feminist politics and the question about the interests pursued by feminist politics. These strategies rest upon the specific interpretations of feminist politics and theories, upon the exclusion of existing power structures from the debate, upon underlying presumptions concerning gender and gender identity and upon the degradation and exclusion of persons due to their sex, their gender or their desire.

"100 vibrantly illustrated cards comprised of 4 color-coded categories, reflective questions, interactive activities, interview-style questions and supportive questions encouraging positive dialogue and discussions related to gender identity topics. Accompanied by a user guide, this is an ideal tool for professionals in group or individual settings"--

This volume brings together an impressive array of internationally recognized scholars from around the world to examine the many facets of gender politics in Asia. Its central concern is how women in various gendered contexts in Asia position themselves in the (re)production of gender relations, and how they manoeuver in order to preserve or alter these. It covers fields as varied as the use of dress as a political weapon, the practice of healing as an indirect challenge to the dominant gender and political orders, and religious ordination as a struggle for equity in Buddhism

AbstractMany of the efforts made by organizations to deal with gender inequalities fail to have the desired impact. This is not only because these efforts are undermined by individuals who disagree with them, nor because individuals do not perceive gender inequalities to be a problem. Rather, the issue is that gender equality practices may be embedded in an organizational context where other practices counteract gender equality. By means of a 17‐month‐long ethnographic study conducted at a technical university in Sweden, the interaction between gender equality practices and gender inequality practices has been identified. It is shown that gender equality practices are themselves based on either questionable assumptions (e.g., that increasing the number of women in senior roles will make a difference), or in an attempt to avoid blaming the victim, on reducing the salience of gendered categorization from which gendered inequalities can be adequately challenged. By focusing on the nexus of practices that move beyond equality work, two practices that undermine gender equality work have been identified, that is, a data‐driven approach to change work and a preference for simple solutions. The conclusion drawn alerts us to the fact that even practices that do not seem related to gender equality work can have an impact on the success or failure of the gender equality work of the organization. This in turn may imply that the institutionalized underpinnings of the organization need to be changed, for example, the belief that more data will help us to find more solutions, or that there are practices out there that can be implemented to wash away gender inequality.

Mineke Bosch vraagt zich af of zij met al haar kennis van de geschiedenis van vrouwen, gender en wetenschap in staat is de werking van gender in haar eigen academische carrière onder ogen te zien en of het wel verstandig is die te benoemen. Het inzicht dat het persoonlijke politiek is heeft haar echter overtuigd van het belang van wat wetenschapshistoricus Donna Haraway credible witnessing noemde. Hopelijk zet haar terugblik aan tot verdere autobiografische reflectie van feministische wetenschappers.