Browse
This article investigates the emergence of intersectionality in EU policy discourses on gender equality in science and research, focusing on how it transforms existing equality politics. Based on critical policy analysis, we identify both limitations and potentials of this development. First, we find that, while documents often focus on the individual dimension of intersectionality, they do not necessarily neglect the structural dimension, as individuals’ experiences are sometimes used to illustrate structural aspects at work. Second, despite increasing mentions of intersectionality, we find that policy discourses remain dominated by a strong focus on gender. Third, we argue that the emergence of intersectionality reflects a shift from striving for sameness between men and women towards a neoliberal conception of valuing differences equally. This shift, while promising greater inclusivity, also risks depoliticizing and commodifying diversity. Our findings underscore the need for policies that genuinely address intersecting inequalities, advancing beyond individualistic and gender-centric approaches.
In 2016, by moving from armed struggle to collective reincorporation, Colombian women ex-guerrilleras of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP) – the farianas – reconfigured the ‘combatant’ identity by leaving their weapons and engaging in post-war politics with their own feminist vision: insurgent feminism. Drawing upon feminist ethnographic fieldwork conducted in the north-east of Colombia in 2019 and 2022, this article has two interlinked objectives. First, through the lenses of embodiment and affects, it explores the challenges and contradictions of transiting from an armed organisation to a civilian identity for women militants. From there, the article then uses the continuum of militancy to explore the (ongoing) consolidation of farianas’ insurgent feminism and the tensions emerging in this endeavour. In doing so, the article contributes, theoretically, to the inclusion of emotions and embodiment in the theorisation of reincorporation and, empirically and politically, to the construction of knowledge and practice about insurgent feminism.
Research on women’s participation in rebellions explores why such groups recruit women members, women’s rationale for joining, their pathways into armed organisations and their experiences therein. However, women are not only mobilised into rebel activity; they are also first movers: women founded or co-founded at least nine rebellions in the post-Second World War period. How do some women overcome common gendered barriers to entry and establish armed groups? I suggest that known women founders’ pathways were facilitated in part by conditions within their social infrastructure – including political relationships, royal status or divine mandates – which supplanted typical gendered obstacles, widened non-traditional pathways into violence and bolstered their credentials among community members. However, many founders still experienced persistent sexism and gendered resistance within their own organisations. These patterns demonstrate the ephemerality of relational infrastructure and the durability of gendered orders that precede, persist and can even entrench despite opportunities created during war.
This article enquires into imaginations of ‘political masculinity’ in a Caribbean-British context and the engagement of artists with the ideologies of the political sphere and their co-construction of it. The article focuses on gendered strategies of political self-fashioning in George Lamming’s Water With Berries and Orlando Patterson’s An Absence of Ruins, which emerge from the tension between political engagement and artistic detachment that structures the work and public image of Caribbean artists and their political interpellation into the public sphere. I propose that artists manoeuvre in a political field of tension as regards citizenship, nation building and cultural authority – themselves inherently gendered concepts – by problematising the basis of black revolutionary politics as tied to essentialised codes of masculinity that in turn rest on specific ideals of cultural authority, such as the (Victorian) ‘man of letters’, the ‘peasant’ or ‘folk hero’, or a more radical political masculine blackness associated with Black Power.
Most politicians are men, yet there is a surprising lack of focus within political science on the causes and consequences of male dominance. This article outlines how political science could benefit from greater engagement with scholarship on men and masculinities. The concept of ‘political masculinities’ has focused on the importance of ‘the political’ to masculinities scholarship; we argue for extending this concept to analyse men and masculinities within political science. We identify insights from scholarship on masculinities that would deepen our understanding of power within formal political arenas. We consider how gender and politics scholarship could benefit from expanding its focus on men. We highlight feminist institutionalism as a tool for bringing masculinities into the study of political institutions. We then offer a framework for taking this research agenda forwards, showing how we can better understand male dominance by thinking about how men access, exercise, maintain and reproduce power.
This article critically interrogates and evaluates the concept of political masculinities as part of enhancing dialogue between political science and critical studies on men and masculinities. It discusses what counts as masculinity, what counts as political and how they connect. The connections are all too clear in mainstream politics, not only in populist, authoritarian, ethno-nationalist and militaristic politics but also in democratic, socialist and various activist politics. The evaluation of the concept of political masculinities is conducted by asking three main questions: how does the concept add to, complement or contradict existing and established external concepts and theories? How is the concept constructed internally, and with what structure, elements and interrelations? And how can the application of the concept be possibly extended into fields beyond those usually recognized and labelled explicitly as specifically political fields, including the politics of the everyday and the politics of multiple global crises?
This article describes how the concept of political masculinities helps explain public responses to US governors’ COVID-19 policies. We draw upon governors’ approval ratings, using a paired comparison of similar states with male and female governors, illustrating these findings with examples of citizens’ opinions on governors’ performance from local newspapers and social media. While the approval ratings data suggest citizens made few gender-based distinctions when appraising their governors’ performance, our media analysis shows citizens used gendered language to describe their governors’ leadership skills, evaluating governors during COVID-19 on stereotypically masculine traits. Also, regarding the “male-as-protector” element of normative political masculinity, both the approval ratings and local media data show that citizens held male—but not female—governors responsible for increased COVID-19 rates. These findings suggest that US citizens continued to regard their male and female governors through the lens of traditional (normative) political masculinities during the pandemic’s first year.
Despite it being not only central to the politics of critical studies on men and masculinities but also one of Connell’s four patterns of masculinity developed alongside the now-canonical ‘hegemonic masculinity’, the concept of ‘complicit masculinity’ has received little attention. This article suggests that complicit masculinities should be understood as political masculinities, in that they are from the beginning shaped by the existing politics and power relations that construct gender. This means acknowledging that masculinities are always at risk of complicity. Rather than this rendering the notion of ‘complicit masculinities’ redundant, I draw on a range of critical studies on men and masculinities to argue that identifying complicity as a feature of masculinities: first, allows us to identify three interrelated dimensions of complicity, which I label as ‘intentional’, ‘structural’ and ‘intersectional’ complicity; and, second, can serve as the starting point for a men’s profeminist politics.
