黑山的性别 "保护 "和性别平等法律的局限性

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES
Milena Aćimić Remiković , Laura Sjoberg
{"title":"黑山的性别 \"保护 \"和性别平等法律的局限性","authors":"Milena Aćimić Remiković ,&nbsp;Laura Sjoberg","doi":"10.1016/j.wsif.2024.103011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Our basic argument is that Montenegro has an approach to gender equality law that appears and claims to be gender-progressive but actually (sometimes intentionally sometimes not) perpetuates gender subordination. What looks like a lack of effective enforcement of gender equality provisions is, we argue, actually much more complex. Gender equality laws can be deployed in ways that contravene real equality goals. We also argue that Montenegro it is not alone in the apparent internal contradiction of having high-quality gender laws ‘on the books’ and unexpectedly poor results. Instead, similar situations are widespread, and gender equality legal discourses often lack adequate tools to conceptualize and address their complexities. We propose, then, a different analytical approach to gender equality law that takes into account contradictions in, and regressions inherent in, (some) gender equality policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47940,"journal":{"name":"Womens Studies International Forum","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 103011"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Montenegrin gender ‘protections’ and the limits of gender equality laws\",\"authors\":\"Milena Aćimić Remiković ,&nbsp;Laura Sjoberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wsif.2024.103011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Our basic argument is that Montenegro has an approach to gender equality law that appears and claims to be gender-progressive but actually (sometimes intentionally sometimes not) perpetuates gender subordination. What looks like a lack of effective enforcement of gender equality provisions is, we argue, actually much more complex. Gender equality laws can be deployed in ways that contravene real equality goals. We also argue that Montenegro it is not alone in the apparent internal contradiction of having high-quality gender laws ‘on the books’ and unexpectedly poor results. Instead, similar situations are widespread, and gender equality legal discourses often lack adequate tools to conceptualize and address their complexities. We propose, then, a different analytical approach to gender equality law that takes into account contradictions in, and regressions inherent in, (some) gender equality policies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"volume\":\"107 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103011\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001493\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WOMENS STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Studies International Forum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001493","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的基本论点是,黑山的性别平等法律看似并声称是性别进步的,但实际上(有时是有意的,有时是无意的)延续了性别从属地位。我们认为,看似缺乏有效执行性别平等条款的情况实际上要复杂得多。性别平等法律的实施方式可能与真正的平等目标背道而驰。我们还认为,黑山并不是唯一一个 "制定 "了高质量的性别平等法律但结果却出乎意料地糟糕的国家。相反,类似的情况比比皆是,而性别平等的法律论述往往缺乏足够的工具来概念化和解决其复杂性。因此,我们建议对性别平等法律采取不同的分析方法,将(某些)性别平等政策中固有的矛盾和倒退考虑在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Montenegrin gender ‘protections’ and the limits of gender equality laws
Our basic argument is that Montenegro has an approach to gender equality law that appears and claims to be gender-progressive but actually (sometimes intentionally sometimes not) perpetuates gender subordination. What looks like a lack of effective enforcement of gender equality provisions is, we argue, actually much more complex. Gender equality laws can be deployed in ways that contravene real equality goals. We also argue that Montenegro it is not alone in the apparent internal contradiction of having high-quality gender laws ‘on the books’ and unexpectedly poor results. Instead, similar situations are widespread, and gender equality legal discourses often lack adequate tools to conceptualize and address their complexities. We propose, then, a different analytical approach to gender equality law that takes into account contradictions in, and regressions inherent in, (some) gender equality policies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
63
审稿时长
79 days
期刊介绍: Women"s Studies International Forum (formerly Women"s Studies International Quarterly, established in 1978) is a bimonthly journal to aid the distribution and exchange of feminist research in the multidisciplinary, international area of women"s studies and in feminist research in other disciplines. The policy of the journal is to establish a feminist forum for discussion and debate. The journal seeks to critique and reconceptualize existing knowledge, to examine and re-evaluate the manner in which knowledge is produced and distributed, and to assess the implications this has for women"s lives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信