Suchergebnisse

The article examines meanings and attitudes to female genital mutilation among migrated minorities in Sweden. It explores the importance of family, networks, work, the role of laws and regulations, and the meaning and importance of female genital mutilation. It draws conclusions on power structures around and determinants of female genital mutilation in relation to attitudes and attitudinal change. The material was collected via four focus groups with 47 migrated men and women, originally from Somalia. Theoretically, the article draws on feminist institutionalism and the framework on gender regimes, and scholarship on intersectional violence, and expands the concept of violence beyond the physical, individual and intentional.The article argues that the risk of female genital mutilation decreases considerably with migration. While some previous research has failed to consider migration as a process of attitudinal change, the article shows that attitudes do not simply migrate with migrants; they change through the processes of migration. It contributes to debates on violence from an integration-theoretical perspective, and shows how the concepts of isolation and mobility can contribute to better explanations of attitudes and practices of female genital mutilation.

Gendered Interests and the European Union. The European Women's Lobby and the Organisation and Representation of Women's Interests. On a general level this thesis concerns the changed and changing institutional conditions for gender equality in Europe and the organisation and institutionalisation of women's social and political interests at the EU level. I ask in what ways political structures and authorities enable and/or obstruct women to generate, sustain and control their presence in politics as women. I explore how the EU institutions structure and provide opportunities and constraints for women to mobilise and organise to act as an authorised party vis-a-vis and within the EU political system. How does it come that women, as a collective, are not only recognised as a politically relevant group but also legitimised to act and be present as women in an organised relationship with the EU system's main authorities? The presence comes in the form of the European Women's Lobby (EWL), an EU level and EU wide non-governmental umbrella organisation which represents some 4000 women's organisations on multiple levels of the EU. The EWL is not the first example of women organising on the EU level, but it is the first of its kind. The EWL was initiated by women from within the European Commission and is funded mainly via a grant from the Commission. The EWL's objectives include the endorsement of equality between women and men and to ensure that measures to promote gender equality and women's rights are taken into account and mainstreamed in all EU policy. Using material gathered through interviews, observations and official documentation I study the structure of the European Women's Lobby; the participation of the EWL in EU politics; the relation between the EWL and the EU institutions; the relation between the EWL's member organisations; and the forms the representation of women's organised social and political interests at EU level can take. I argue that in the specific political system of the EU, organised interests in civil society and the EWL perform the functions of input, and participate in output and feedback. Organised interests function as intermediaries between the national and European levels. Organised interests strive to gain influence; the Commission, as a political authority, strives to gain legitimacy of its policy-making through the input and output of representative organised interests. As a consequence of what I argue is a corporatist policymaking style of the Commission the EWL has become increasingly institutionalised. The trade off is that while the EWL has enjoyed the Commission's support and funding to constitute an established EU level platform from which women can formulate, mobilise and pursue their interests, the EWL has must organise and take control over the interests aggregated from its member organisations and over the form of the member organisations. The very structure of the EWL can be seen as part of the price the EWL has to pay to be granted somewhat of a representative monopoly in terms of opportunities to influence EU policy-making through the various channels of consultation. In this context, I argue that the representativeness of organised interests is key. There is no electoral basis legitimising the policy-making of the Commission, instead, this basis is constituted by organised interests. Paradoxically, this holds the potential for increasing the legitimacy of the Commission, something which increasing transparency has failed to do. It is no exaggeration to claim that the EWL offers a remarkable EU level platform for women to act and pursue their interests as women. By studying the actual impact of EU level policy-making and politics on various ways, this thesis argues that the very existence of the EWL can be understood as being in the interest of women.

The debates on, in, and between feminist and trans* movements have been politically intense at best and aggressively hostile at worst. The key contestations have revolved around three issues: First, the question of who constitutes a woman; second, what constitute feminist interests; and third, how trans* politics intersects with feminist politics. Despite decades of debates and scholarship, these impasses remain unbroken. In this article, our aim is to work out a way through these impasses. We argue that all three types of contestations are deeply invested in notions of identity, and therefore dealt with in an identitarian way. This has not been constructive in resolving the antagonistic relationship between the trans* movement and feminism. We aim to disentangle the antagonism within anti-trans* feminist politics on the one hand, and trans* politics' responses to that antagonism on the other. In so doing, we argue for a politics of status-based recognition (drawing on Fraser, 2000a, 2000b) instead of identity-based recognition, highlighting individuals' specific needs in society rather than women's common interests (drawing on Jónasdóttir, 1991), and conceptualising the intersections of the trans* movement and feminism as mutually shaping rather than as trans* as additive to the feminist project (drawing on Walby, 2007, and Walby, Armstrong, and Strid, 2012). We do this by analysing the main contemporary scholarly debates on the relationship between the trans* movement and feminism within feminist and trans* politics. Unafraid of a polemic approach, our selection of material is strategic and illuminates the specific arguments put forward in the article.

The debates on, in, and between feminist and trans* movements have been politically intense at best and aggressively hostile at worst. The key contestations have revolved around three issues: First, the question of who constitutes a woman; second, what constitute feminist interests; and third, how trans* politics intersects with feminist politics. Despite decades of debates and scholarship, these impasses remain unbroken. In this article, our aim is to work out a way through these impasses. We argue that all three types of contestations are deeply invested in notions of identity, and therefore dealt with in an identitarian way. This has not been constructive in resolving the antagonistic relationship between the trans* movement and feminism. We aim to disentangle the antagonism within anti-trans* feminist politics on the one hand, and trans* politics' responses to that antagonism on the other. In so doing, we argue for a politics of status-based recognition (drawing on Fraser, 2000a, 2000b) instead of identity-based recognition, highlighting individuals' specific needs in society rather than women's common interests (drawing on Jónasdóttir, 1991), and conceptualising the intersections of the trans* movement and feminism as mutually shaping rather than as trans* as additive to the feminist project (drawing on Walby, 2007, and Walby, Armstrong, and Strid, 2012). We do this by analysing the main contemporary scholarly debates on the relationship between the trans* movement and feminism within feminist and trans* politics. Unafraid of a polemic approach, our selection of material is strategic and illuminates the specific arguments put forward in the article.

Summary It is widely accepted that honor-based violence is a lived reality and a serious problem. However, honor-based violence is also a contested academic and political field, characterized by a polarized debate about whether or not the violence comprises stereotyping images of immigrants. This article asks how honor-based violence can be understood in light of this polarization, and what consequences it may have for clients and social workers. It is based on interview data with 235 adults with either professional ( n = 199) or personal experiences ( n = 36) of honor-based violence in Sweden. The data has been thematically coded and analyzed using the concepts of culturalization and intersectionality. Findings Honor-based violence is simultaneously a lived reality and teeming with stereotypes that are constructed by culturalizing images of nation, gender, age, religion, and sexuality. These stereotypes constitute forms of violence themselves and decrease clients' trust in society and its institutions. Hence, the stereotypes become obstacles to social workers' capacity to support those exposed to violence. At a general level, the stereotypes contribute to retaining the exposed in violence. In contrast, intersectional approaches to understanding honor-based violence have the potential to capture clients' self-perceived and complex formulations of the causes of, and the character of, their situation, and thus increase the possibilities for adequate support. Applications The article's findings can support social workers' understanding of the complexity of honor-based violence and strengthen their possibilities and capacities to develop antiracist and nonviolent communicative practices and, thus, acknowledge clients' varying experiences and individual needs.

The concept of intersectionality is reviewed and further developed for more effective use. Six dilemmas in the debates on the concept are disentangled, addressed and resolved: the distinction between structural and political intersectionality; the tension between 'categories' and 'inequalities'; the significance of class; the balance between a fluidity and stability; the varyingly competitive, cooperative, hierarchical and hegemonic relations between inequalities and between projects; and the conundrum of 'visibility' in the tension between the 'mutual shaping' and the 'mutual constitution' of inequalities. The analysis draws on critical realism and on complexity theory in order to find answers to the dilemmas in intersectionality theory.

Evaluating the quality of employment and care policy in relation to gender equality is important given the continuing inequalities between men and women in paid and unpaid work. However, assessment raises dilemmas: quality according to what criteria; quality for whom; and quality of what? It is proposed here that good quality means transformation in gender relations towards an equal distribution of paid and unpaid work, equal pay and de-segregation; that sensitivity to differences between women is required, but not the adoption of different quality standards; and that working towards the goal of transformation demands consideration of several interconnected policy arenas. Assessing quality is difficult; but it is possible – and it is crucial to achieving gender equality.

AbstractThis paper critically interrogates the usefulness of the concept of violence regimes for social politics, social analysis, and social theory. In the first case, violence regimes address and inform politics and policy, that is, social politics, both around various forms of violence, such as gender-based violence, violence against women, anti-lesbian, gay and transgender violence, intimate partner violence, and more widely in terms of social and related policies and practices on violence and anti-violence. In the second case, violence regimes assist social analysis of the interconnections of different forms and aspects of violence, and relative autonomy from welfare regimes and gender regimes. Third, the violence regime concept engages a wider range of issues in social theory, including the exclusion of the knowledges of the violated, most obviously, but not only, when the voices and experiences of those killed are unheard. The concept directs attention to assumptions made in social theory as incorporating or neglecting violence. More specifically, it highlights the significance of: social effects beyond agency; autotelic ontology, that is, violence as a means and end in itself, and an inequality in itself; the relations of violence, sociality and social relations; violence and power, and the contested boundary between them; and materiality-discursivity in violence and what is to count as violence. These are key issues for both violence studies and social theory more generally.