Whose Rights-Which Rights? Global Contestations of Women's and Gender Rights - Uni ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
12
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
Alexandra Scheele, Julia Roth, Heidemarie Winkel
Whose Rights—Which Rights?
Global Contestations of Women’s and Gender Rights
Alexandra Scheele, Julia Roth and Heidemarie Winkel are the conveners of the research group ‘Global Contestations of Women’s and Gender Rights’.
Alexandra Scheele is a social scientist and has a strong research focus on social and economic gender inequalities.
Julia Roth is professor for American Studies with a focus on Gender Studies and InterAmerican Studies.
Heidemarie Winkel is a sociologist and her research interests center on religious orders of knowledge as well as on gender as social anchor of sense-making
and lifeworldly orientation. All three researchers are based at Bielefeld University.
1 Introduction
UN . 2021. Goal 5. Achieve gender A growing number of protest movements across the globe recently show that women’s and gender
equality and empower all women rights cannot be taken for granted but are highly contested: be it the women’s strikes in Poland against
and girls. https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/ the abolition of abortion rights, the mobilizations under the hashtag #SayHerName in numerous
gender-equality/ (18.01.2021) countries against racist police violence, or the women’s movement #NiUnaMenos against femicides
and sexualized violence in Latin America. Against the backdrop of a long unequal history of rights
implementation, the research group takes on an intersectional postcolonial approach to shed light on
the legacies and persistent inequalities these processes have set in motion. Based on an observation of
the worldwide frictions caused by a global hegemonic equality regime which goes back to such colonial
divisions, we are interested in applying a global perspective—not defined as all-encompassing but
focusing on interrelations and entanglements rather than on national containers—while simultane-
ously taking the respective local dynamics into account. Also within the current debates of the United
Nations (UN ), these contestations are increasingly reflected. In relation to Sustainable Development
Goals UN reports state that some progress on gender equality and women’s empowerment can be
observed, although “women and girls continue to suffer discrimination and violence in every part of
the world” (UN 2021).1 Therefore, gender equality is one of the UN ’s targets to be achieved by 2030.
Furthermore, the World Bank’s 2020 report on Women, Business, and the Law states that only “(e)ight
economies—Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, and Sweden—score 100,
meaning that women are on an equal legal standing with men across all eight indicators [meaning
they give women and men equal legal rights, AS/JR/HW ]” (World Bank Group 2020, 6). In a similar
vein, despite the formal existence of anti-discrimination laws in many countries, LGBTQI * persons
still have no access to equality since they are denied equal treatment such as marriage for all, forming
a family, or free choice of gender identity (de Silva 2018, Fabris Campos , 2016). These examples also
point to the importance of the different dimensions of law that are expressed in formal (before the
law) and material equality (in law), as well as the understanding of equality as recognition (right to
participation and redistribution, or right to be different) (Cesario Alvim and Fabris Campos ,ALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
13
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
2021). Nevertheless, there are problems in understanding equality as a test of “sameness/difference”,
since it assumes a hidden comparative parameter, that is embodied in the male, white, western, cisgender,
heterosexual, upperclass norm (MacKinnon , 1989; Minow , 1990). Therefore, critical approaches
understand the right to equality rather as a prohibition of dominance (MacKinnon , 1989) or hierarchy
(Baer , 1996; 2013).
This divide between legally guaranteed gender equality principles on the one hand and ongoing
gender inequality across the globe on the other hand builds the starting point of joint project of the
research group ‘Global Contestations of Women’s and Gender Rights’, which begun its work at the
ZiF in October 2020. Against the backdrop of this ongoing divide, however, the primary concern of
the research fellows are recent developments towards the increasing contestations of the normative
ideal of gender equality across the globe. The group thus discusses and examines the manifold ways in
which the recent contestations go beyond an incomplete implementation of universal rights principles
and the constantly created particularisms. Instead, gender equality principles as such are increas-
ingly challenged and the presumed normative consensus about equality principles has become
disputable in new ways in diverse local contexts –ranging from Hungary, Poland and Germany to
South Asia, the MENA region, Latin American countries like Brazil and Colombia, and the US .
Justicia has never been blind: Theoretical Perspectives
The question “Which Rights” and “Whose Rights” has from the outset shaped debates about equality.
Women such as Olympe de Gouges (1791) or Mary Wollstonecraft (1792) and other minorities
who were excluded from the access to such presumably universal rights (such as colonized as in
the context of the Haitian Revolution 1791–1804 or enslaved like Sojourner Truth 1851) revealed
that the alleged universality was indeed framing rights in the interest of certain groups (white male
property owners). They did so, however, based on the claim that rights should be for everyone and
hence made rights the platform for ongoing negotiations over power, representation, and access.
Thus, the lack of legal equality—despite the promise made by the political revolutions before and
after 1800—has been a core issue of women’s, civil rights and anti-colonial movements and then,
starting in the 1970s, of women’s studies across all disciplines. In political science in the European
context, feminist scholars conceptualized the underlying asymmetry of power as the sexual contract
(Pateman 1988) which shapes the social contract locally as well as relationally/internationally (Mies
1996). Historians such as Ute Frevert (1995) or Geneviève Fraisse (1995) reconstructed the
socially assumed naturalness of the sexual contract and historicized the social division of labor. They
reframed it as being the result of the capitalist transformation of societies in modern European
nation states, focusing on the macro-structural reasons of gender inequality and dismantled knowledge
production about gender as a category of fundamental difference and women’s assumed ‘natural
peculiarity’. However, many political philosophers have long neglected gender in their conceptual-
izations of justice despite engaging more intensively with notions of “the ways in which goods and
benefits, burdens and responsibilities should be allocated” (Moller Okin 2004, 1539). With the
growing influence of gender studies in the 1990s in European and US contexts, the masculine con-
struction of the subject of liberal rights in liberal theory was increasingly critically reflected, in
political science as well as in philosophy and in jurisprudence, as were gendered assumptions aboutALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
14
notions of justice and the public/private divide which obscure the private sphere as a political context
of rights violation (e.g. Benhabib 1992; Nussbaum 1999; Fraser and Honneth 2003; Young 2011).
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
At the same time, basic assumptions about the dichotomous, gendered organization of social
life were increasingly questioned in social constructivist approaches (Butler 1990). One focus of
constructivist critique in sociology, political science and in cultural studies was the reification of
essentialist notions of gender difference based on the naturalization of sex. Another focus of critique
was the neglect of gender diversity in the light of the heteronormative matrix of social life.
In sum, the focus on the lack of legal equality in women’s studies has shifted towards the focus
on the reproduction of inequalities on the economic, the political and the social level. Particularly,
since the institutional legal barriers to women’s participation were removed (e.g. the right to vote
and divorce or the breadwinner model in German family law in 1976), the question of why and how
inequality is nevertheless reproduced took center stage. Consequently, the study of the institutional-
ization of equality principles gained in importance. However, as social science research over the last
20 years demonstrates, gender is still a central category of structural inequality in all spheres of life,
and thus the gap between formal rights and the factual dimensions of women’s and differently
gendered persons’ discrimination continues to be a core issue of gender studies. Equality has in fact
not been achieved (Klinger 2003).
The question of the conception of equality standards is also a highly relevant issue from a global
perspective. Transnationally oriented social science research has demonstrated that gender has over
the last few decades been steadily reinforced as a category of structural inequality across the globe
(Walby 2009). These approaches also revealed that the colonial division of the world implied that
differently gendered and racialized subjects are being implemented. The gendered ascriptions of non-
hegemonic deficient/feminine or hypersexual/threatening masculinities and exoticized femininities
still strongly resonate in political and media representations. Postcolonial theorists have reconstructed
how gender has been continually reconfigured as a signifier of difference, as a colonial knowledge
category and as a mechanism of othering (Spivak 1990; Lugones 2008). Moreover, research on the
global equality norm CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women)
has mainly concentrated on the diffusion, translation and adoption of the global rights standard on
the national level in order to identify and explain deficiencies in its legal institutionalization (e.g.
Heintz and Schnabel 2006; Wotipka and Tsutsui 2008). Usually, these deficiencies are based
on the perception of CEDAW and related human rights norms as universally effective concepts. By
contrast, anthropological studies focus on the various levels to which global equality principles have
been adopted in the frame of specific socio-cultural contexts, while local feminist scholars and activists
bring in their respective context-specific perspectives (Kombo 2013). However, many approaches are
often still based on implicit notions of the asymmetric adoption of—or a kind of uncircumventable
imbalance between—the global frame, which is considered universalistic, and the local level (e.g.
Mayer 1995; Merry 2006; Zwingel 2016). The increasingly shifting understanding of women’s
rights as human rights in terms of a growing acceptance of women’s rights as individual rights is
another aspect which is often not reflected upon. This also indicates an assumed universal notion of
rights which contrasts with the empirical variety of rights cultures. As a consequence, the research
group departs from the conviction that intersectionally sensitive and contextually open approaches
to the analysis of (gender) equality principles are what is urgently needed in order to address the
phenomenon of the recent world-wide contestations of women’s and gender rights.
Therefore, the research group builds on these insights, but goes one step further and shifts attention
to the question of why and to what extent equality rights are being contested today and what equality can
mean under these circumstances (and in different settings and contexts). It elaborates on the historiciza-
tion of global inequalities in line with an understanding of entangled global histories as continuouslyALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
15
marked by the coloniality/modernity dialectics in order to think of ways in which equality principles
can be reconceptualized in different ways (Barreto 2014, Theurer 2018, Theurer and Kaleck
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
2020), also e.g. taking into account the importance of land rights in (post-)colonial settings which
are also particularly gendered (Durueke 2021; Goemann 2009). The group is also interested in
re-thinking notions of universality towards a more relational conceptualization that pays credit to
inequalities, diversity and difference (Joseph 2008 and 2021, Kerner 2019, Schubert 2020).
Three Perspectives to develop a framework
Currently, the research group organizes the participating individual research projects alongside the
following three arenas (1) the gendered division of labor, (2) the instrumentalization of religion, and
(3) gendered citizenship regimes as well as sexual rights around the following three perspectives:
Re/Considering Global Contestations and Re/Configurations of Gender Inequalities
The research group’s work is based on the premise that gender inequality continues to be constitutive
in contemporary capitalist societies and is consequently reproduced as a constitutive pillar of the
social fabric of gender across the globe. Consequently, the researchers elaborate on a differentiated
understanding of the extent to which and in what ways ‘gender’ and ‘gender equality’ have recently
become a contested arena in the light of the (global) institutionalization of equality rights. The reason
why this research is necessary does not primarily result from the fact that the contestation of universal
rights claims has a long trajectory, as mentioned before. Rather, the contestation of gender equality
principles is developing in a new direction in the light of recent (global) economic and political crises.
It is unfolding in the light of neo-liberal regimes and regional wars in the neo-colonial world order
which is marked by structural violence and the resulting forms of impoverishment, expulsion, violence,
migration. The contestations are being expressed through growing nationalist, homophobic and racist
right-wing populisms, that can be observed in many places, which confront basic equality principles
and the acceptance of identities beyond the binary gender model. Such far right and right-wing popu-
list actors as well as religious fundamentalists are putting gender and LGBTQI * rights under severe
scrutiny. To some degree, gender politics and rights claims are being demonized as ‘gender ideology’,
a term which functions as a rhetorical tool in the construction of a new ‘common sense’ which opposes
gender equality. As a result, discourses on gender equality have become a resource for global right-
wing alliances and function as an affectively loaded meta-language and socio-cultural Singular
instrument of symbolic boundary-making and othering rather than as resources of social solidarity
and cohesion (Pető 2015; Gutiérrez Rodríguez , Tuczu and Winkel 2018; Dietze and Roth 2020).
Against this backdrop, the research group seeks to understand how gender has been revitalized
as a decisive category of difference, inequality and global desolidarization and how gender rights are
put up for renegotiation by authoritarian or right-wing populist actors who put both feminist politics
and gender studies under severe scrutiny, while equality norms are simultaneously used rhetorically
as a medium of othering. Arguing that women’s rights (and sometimes: gay rights) have already been
legally installed in one’s ‘own culture’—a phenomenon which Gabriele Dietze (2015) described as
sexual exceptionalism—, sexism and inequalities in ‘other cultures’ are attributed as ‘dangerous’ (as
we could observe in Donald Trump ’s phrase to build the wall to protect US women from “Mexican
rapist”, or the “Rape-Fugees not Welcome” campaign in Germany). This outsourcing of misogyny and
sexism (and, partly, homophobia) to an ethnicized “Other” which enables a rhetoric that pretends to
speak “in the name of women’s rights” mirrors the coloniality of gender as a knowledge category. The
research group is thus interested in tracing how gender inequalities are reframed in ways that reflect
the (social, economic and political) functionality of inequalities in capitalist societies. As Cornelia
Klinger (2003) argues, freedom and equality are considered to be essential preconditions in theALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
16
emergence of the market economy, but this does not mean that unfreedom and inequality do not
continue to exist in such contexts. Instead, the extent of freedom and (gender) equality in modern
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
societies is limited to the functioning of the state, economy, science and technology. Also, most market
economies simultaneously structurally depend on the historic unequal (racialized and gendered)
global division of labor and life chances.
To give some examples: the pattern of women’s greater responsibility for care work while men
mostly pursue paid work, continues to be a constant all over the world, albeit in very diverse formations
and to distinct extents. The same is true for different notions as to what is understood as paid work.
In general, the gendered division of labor guarantees the provision of care, which is understood to be
the precondition for human existence. Since women worldwide are increasingly participating in
paid work on (global) labor markets, the question of ‘who cares?’ is becoming inevitable. This is not
only true in regard to childcare but also to care of the elderly and of dependent people—plus self-care
or the reproduction of labor power. How this reproductive crisis is resolved differs across political
systems and depends on societal resources, and it remains a contested arena between different actors.
While many countries have introduced financial insurance systems which cover some of the costs of
caring for the elderly, others rely on the opportunities available on the global labor market, in which
migration and care regimes are closely linked to global value chains and result in the phenomenon
of global care chains (Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2003), a phenomenon that we also see within
societies between more well-off women and families who employ poorer women for taking care of the
household and for childcare. Nevertheless: care remains a female arena, either financially supported
through insurance schemes and state support or by means of commodified work. In consequence, the
gender equality norm of improving the opportunities and conditions for female employment conflicts
with society’s needs to provide care based on the capitalist logic of production and reproduction and
the related need for unequally compensated labor divisions nationally and globally (Plomien 2018
and 2019, Scheele 2021, Sproll 2021). This entails a critical reflection about neoliberal processes of
precarization (Brown 2018, Schild 2013a, 2013b).
Other projects of the research group examine, similarly, the function of religion as a socio-
cultural, symbolically based instrument which legitimates gender inequality. Virtually all religions
more or less strictly legitimate the social control of women and their sexuality. However, over the last
two decades fundamentalist religious groups are increasingly gaining center stage and are openly
arguing against equality in the realm of institutionalized religion, for example with regard to LGBTQI *’s
equal participation in sacred spaces. In the same vein, these groups argue in favor of gender difference
in society as a whole and against a multiplicity of lifestyles and sexual orientation, as we can see in
the mobilizations against school materials and programs promoting sexual diversity. This arena
ranges from Pentecostalism to fundamentalism in the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox
Churches and Muslim fundamentalism, Jewish orthodoxy and Hindu nationalism. Religious revela-
tion—that is the religious symbolization of ‘femininity’ and ‘the’ gender order—is used as a tool to
legitimize gender inequality as divinely ‘natural’ and to discriminate against diversity or reproductive
rights. Increasingly, diverse religious actors alas unite with ultra-nationalist and far right actors using
gender as an “affective bridge” (Dietze 2020) to make a claim for demography and the reproduction
of the (“White”/right) nation, for which the female body is perceived as crucial and feminists, gender
studies and LGBTQI* activists a fundamental threat (Case 2019).
Also, regarding citizenship and sexual rights, there is a discrepancy between the universal
notion of human rights and particular citizenship rights, which a further strand of the research
group examines. While universal ideas relate rights to the criterion of ‘being human’, citizenship
rights do not only mean formal membership but also the right to participate, the ‘right to have rights’
(Arendt 1943/1986), the right to become and to be a full member of society. T. H. Marshall (1950)ALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
17
has argued that civil rights, political rights and social rights are key elements of social integration.
However, as Marshall continues, these rights are in conflict with the capitalist class structure—and,
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
one should add, with the gendered and racialized substructure of capitalist societies as expressed in
persistent colonial inequalities. Research from the fields of history, legal and cultural studies has
shown that ‘gender’ and ‘sexual orientation’—together with ‘race’, (dis)ability, religion, residence
status—were and still are used as criteria for persons not being considered as citizens who belong.
This results in limited freedom of mobility, limited access to resources and limited opportunities to
be heard as well as greater exposure to discrimination and violence. Thus, citizenship and gender are
the most decisive factors which account for extreme inequalities between individuals in rich and
poor countries in the 21st century. From a global perspective, citizenship provides a crucial factor of
stratification when it comes to life chances, access to social mobility and participatory rights, but it
is strongly contested today. This is especially evident in the context of transnational migration,
where citizenship status in combination with gender functions as one of the most effective axes of
inequality, turning gendered citizenship rights into a crucial component of contestation and coloni-
ality (Boatcă and Roth 2016; Roth 2021). At the same time and through the establishing of gender
equality and—at least in some countries—recognition of LGBTQI * rights, gender and sexual rights are
used as arguments for allowing access to citizenship (i.e. including gender discrimination or the
prosecution of LGBTQI * people in asylum rights) or to deny citizenship (i.e. using informal criteria
such as shared values of gender equality for residence permits or formal citizenship). This brings the
research group back to the question of how the issue of gender and sexual rights has evolved into a
new and contested terrain and how it is nonetheless possible to reconceptualize equality principles.
Re/Conceptualizing Equality Principles
Under this perspective we are currently discussing the empirical reality of multiple rights cultures
and related notions of ‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘inclusion’ across the globe. This multiplicity of rights
principles and notions is not only framed by the question of how these concepts are each understood
in diverse contexts, but also of how various notions of ‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘inclusion’ are put into
practice in the light of the contentious nature of the semantics of ‘equality’.
This becomes visible in the field of religion: Back in the 19th century, women in various religions
started to question notions of gender which legitimate inequality both in the religious sphere and in
society. In the second half of the 20th and first decades of the 21st century this development intensified by
adding approaches which questioned basic belief systems and claimed a (theological) reconceptual-
ization of notions of justice towards equality and women’s inclusion, e.g. the women’s movement in
Morocco (Sadiqi 2014) or women protesting against their unequal treatment against the land grabbing
by oil companies in the Niger Delta by appropriating and re-defining religious practices such as the
Naked Curse (Durueke 2021). Against this backdrop, the research group focuses on the question of
how religious activists and professionals respond to growing religious orthodoxy and fundamentalism
(in their particular religious context) as well as to the political instrumentalization of religion by
right-wing actors. One question is to what extent women (and men) are reinterpreting religious
knowledge and making it their own (in contrast to religious authorities and fundamentalist political
actors). This includes analyzing the question of to what extent they develop religious notions of inclusion,
namely in the light of recent contestations of equality claims. A second interest is the question of how
religious notions of justice and inclusion are reconciled with secular notions of equality.
Re/Configurating Global Solidarities
Authoritarian policy regimes and fundamentalist social movements not only tend to question liberal
values, but they also use what are known as natural differences and heterosexual relations betweenALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
18
women and men as an argument for ‘restoring orders’ in a complex world (Hark and Villa 2015;
Pető 2015). Increasingly, social constructivist and liberal versions of gender diversity are being
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
demonized as ‘gender ideology’, a term coined by the Vatican after the Beijing Conference of 1995, and
as ‘ideological colonization’ (Case 2019). Conservative forces are reversing the hierarchy by positioning
themselves as victims and are appropriating the discourse of anti-colonialism and anti-capitalism to
oppose gender equality (Korolczuk and Graff 2018). A growing number of feminist movements
worldwide (such as the women’s marches in the US and, globally, ‘Ni una menos!’ in Latin America,
the ‘Precarias a le Deriva’ and the women’s strikes in Spain and elsewhere, women’s NGO s in Iraq or
Iran) are confronting these conservative, illiberal, anti-egalitarian tendencies around the globe based
on anti-sexism and the defence of gender and sexual rights. These movements point to the colonial
legacies of global gender hierarchies and are increasingly pursuing an intersectional and global soli-
darity agenda beyond (single-issue) identity politics (Roth 2021). Following Judith Butler (2015), by
performing ‘embodied ways of coming together’ these movements are able to enact forms of radical
solidarity in opposition to destructive political and economic forces and create a new sense of ‘the
people’ as interdependent, beyond the exclusionary logics of right-wing populism and, thus, of public
space and democracy/sociability. They advocate abolishing border regimes, fighting violence against
women and fighting for a ‘Care Revolution’ and against the continuous and revived globally deeply
gendered and radicalized division of labour.
Based on observations of these opposing phenomena, the research group addresses the struggles
for gender equality and the formation of translocal solidarities which are emerging transnationally
at the same time. From different disciplinary and local perspectives, the researchers of the group aim
at identifying how and under what conditions women, differently gendered people and all those who
oppose gender inequalities and violence formulate and put into practice a politics of solidarities
(Bargetz , Scheele , Schneider 2021). Some central questions the research group pursues are how
feminist practices and politics and feminist/gender research can follow an intersectional and post
colonial/decolonial agenda and, simultaneously, how global hierarchies between and within feminist
networks can be addressed and overcome. Whose rights and which rights are being contested and
why, and, vice versa, whose rights and which rights are being defended in the current scenarios?
Accordingly, how does law produce and shape its own subjects in different contexts (Joseph 2008,
2021) How can different forms of solidarities in the field of work/labour (and care), beyond religious
boundary making and exclusive citizenship rights be put into practice? And how can relational
versions of universality be conceptualized?
As convenors of and participants in the research group ‘Global Contestations of Women’s and
Gender Rights’ we are convinced that the interdisciplinary and the international composition of the
group as well as the promising range of expertise of our fellows and their manifold positions and
viewpoints will allow new and decisive insights in these urgent questions.ALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
19
References
Arendt, Hannah . 1943 [1986]. Wir Flüchtlinge. In: Zur Zeit. Politische Essays, edited by Marie Louise Knott .
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
München: dtv.
Baer, Susanne . 1996. Dilemmata im Recht und Gleichheit als Hierarchisierungsverbot – Der Abschied von
Thelma und Louise, Kriminologisches Journal 28:4, 242–260.
Baer, Susanne . 2013. Gleichberechtigung revisited, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift: NJW 66:43, 3145–3149.
Bargetz, Brigitte; Alexandra Scheele and Silke Schneider . 2021. Solidarität in Differenz: zum Potenzial
feministischer Perspektiven. In: Jens Kastner, Lea Susemichel (eds.): Unbedingte Solidarität. Münster:
Unrast Verlag.
Barreto, José Manuel . 2014. Epistemologies of the South and Human Rights Santos and the Quest for Global
and Cognitive Justice. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 2014.
—-. 2013. Human Rights from a Third World Perspective: Critique, History and International Law. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars.
Benhabib, Seyla . 1992. Situating the Self. Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. London:
Routledge.
Boatcă, Manuela and Julia Roth . 2016. Unequal and Gendered: Notes on the Coloniality of Citizenship
Rights. In: Manuela Boatcă and Vilna Bashi Treitler (eds.), Current Sociology, monograph issue:
Dynamics of Inequalities in a Global Perspective, 64 (2), 191–212.
Brown, Wendy . 2021. Neoliberalism’s Frankenstein: Authoritarian Freedom in Twenty-First Century
“Democracies”, Critical Times, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2021, 60–79.
Butler, Judith . 1990. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith . 2015. Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Case, Mary-Anne . 2019. TransFormations in the Vatican’s War on “Gender Ideology”. Journal Articles. 9669.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/9669.
De Silva, Adrian . 2018. Negotiating the Borders of the Gender Regime: Developments and Debates on Trans(sexuality)
in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bielefeld: transcript.
Dietze, Gabriele . 2015. Anti-Genderismus intersektional lesen. In: Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft 13 (2), 125–127.
Dietze, Gabriele and Julia Roth . 2020. Right-Wing Populism and Gender. European Perspectives and Beyond.
Bielefeld: Transcript.
Durueke, Onyinyechukwu . 2021. “Thinking Solidarity: Women’s Movements in the Niger Delta” talk,
Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), presented at the workshop ‘Whose Rights, and Which Rights?
Cultural Resources, Historical Resources & Notions of Equality Principles in Diverse Contexts’, 15.01.2021
(unpublished).
Ehrenreich, Barbara and Arlie Hochschild . 2003. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the
New Economy. New York.
Fabris Campos , Ligia . 2016. Rights of transgender people in comparative perspective [Direitos de pessoas
trans* em perspectiva comparada: O papel do conceito de dano no Brasil e na Alemanha], Revista Direito
e Práxis 7:3, 476–495.
Fraisse, Geneviève . 1995. Geschlecht und Moderne. Archäologien der Gleichberechtigung. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth . 2003. Umverteilung oder Anerkennung? Eine politisch-philo-sophische Kontro-
verse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Frevert, Ute . 1995. »Mann und Weib, und Weib und Mann«. Geschlechterdifferenzen in der Moderne. München:
C. H. Beck.
Goeman, Mishuana. 2009. Notes Towards a Native Feminism’s Spatial Practice. In: Wicazo Sa Review, Volume 24,
Number 2, Fall 2009, 169 – 187
Gomes, Juliana Cesario Alvim and Ligia Fabris Campos . 2021. In search of equality: Dilemmas and
challenges of using identity categories to promote fundamental rights of political minorities, Revista
de Direito Público, (forthcoming).
Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación ; Pinar Tuczu and Heidemarie Winkel (eds.). 2018. Feminisms in
Times of Anti-Genderism, Racism and Austerity. Special Issue of Women’s Studies International Volume 68.
Heintz, Bettina and Annette Schnabel . 2006. Verfassungen als Spiegel globaler Normen? Eine quantitative
Analyse der Gleichberechtigungsartikel in nationalen Verfassungen. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie 58 (4), 685–716.
Joseph, Suad . 2021. “Contested and Contesting Conceptual Frameworks: Questioning the Universality of
Human Rights”, presented at the ZiF workshop ‘Whose Rights, and Which Rights? Cultural Resources,
Historical Resources & Notions of Equality Principles in Diverse Contexts’, 15.01.2021 (unpublished).
—-. 2008. “Rights Talk, Rights Work”. Presented at the Middle East/South Asia Studies Program Conference
Round Table. University of California, Davis. Feb 2008. 88–91.
—-. ed. Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East. Syracuse, 2000.
Kerner, Ina . 2019. Universalism: Claims, Problems, and Potentials. ARCH PLUS , 2019.ALEXANDR A SCHEELE, JULIA ROTH, HEIDEMARIE WINKEL | WHOSE RIGHTS—WHICH RIGHTS? GLOBAL CONTESTATIONS OF WOMEN’S AND GENDER RIGHTS
20
Klinger, Cornelia . 2003. Ungleichheit in den Verhältnissen von Klasse, Rasse und Geschlecht. In: Gudrun-
Axeli Knapp and Angelika Wetterer (eds.), Achsen der Differenz. Gesellschaftstheorie und feministische
Kritik. Bd. 2. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot, 14–49.
ZiF -Mitteilungen 1|2021
Kombo, Brenda; Faiza Jama Mohamed and Rainatou Sow . 2013. Journey to Equality: 10 Years of the Protocol
on the Rights of Women in Africa. http://www.soawr.org/images/JourneytoEquality.pdf.
Korolczuk, Elżbieta and Agnieszka Graff . 2018. Gender as “Ebola from Brussels”: The Anticolonial Frame
and the Rise of Illiberal Populism. In: Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43 (4), 797–821.
Lugones, María . 2008. The Coloniality of Gender. In: Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise 2, 1–17.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1989. Sex Equality: On Difference and Dominance. Towards a Feminist Theory
of the State, Harvard University Press, 215–234.
Marshall, Thomas H. 1950 [1977]. Class, Citizenship and Social Development: Essays. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mayer, Ann Elizabeth. 1995. Cultural Pluralism as a Bar to Women’s Rights: Reflections on the Middle East.
In: Julie Peters and Andrea Wolper (eds.), Women’s Rights, Human Rights. International Feminist Perspectives.
New York: Routledge, 176–188.
Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mies, Maria . 1996. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. London: Zed Books.
Minow, Martha . 1990. Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Cornell University Press.
Moller Okin, Susan. 2004. Gender, Justice and Gender: An Unfinished Debate. In: Fordham Law Revue 72 (5),
1537–1568.
Nussbaum, Martha C .. 1999. Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Pateman, Carol . 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pető, Andrea . 2015. ‘Anti-Gender’ Mobilisational Discourse of Conservative and Far Right Parties as a Challenge
for Progressive Politics. In: Eszter Kováts and Maari Poim (eds.), Gender as Symbolic Glue. The Position and Role
of Conservative and Far Right Parties in the Anti-Gender Mobilizations in Europe. Budapest: FEPS and Friedrich-
Ebert-Stiftung, 126–132. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/budapest/11382.pdf [27.7.2018].
Plomien, Ania and Gregory Schwartz . 2020. Labour mobility in transnational Europe: between depletion,
mitigation and citizenship entitlements harm. European Journal of Politics and Gender. Volume 3, Number 2,
June 2020, 237–256.
Roth, Julia . 2021. Can Feminism Trump Populism? Right-wing Trends and Intersectional Contestations in the Americas.
Trier: WVT .
Sadiqi, Fatima . 2014. Moroccan Feminist Discourses. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scheele, Alexandra . 2021. The Role of Gender in the Making of Global Labour Markets. In: Ursula Mense-
Petermann; Thomas Welskopp and Anna Zaharieva (eds.), In Search of the Global Labour Market.
Leiden: Brill Publisher.
Schild, Verónica . 2013a. Feminists and the Neoliberal Revolution in Government: A Critical Essay on Politics
and the State. In: Markus Hochmüller et al. (eds.), Politik in verflochtenen Räumen/Los espacios entrelazados de
lo politico. Berlin: Verlag Walter Frey, 310–325.
—-. 2013b. Care and Punishment in Latin America: The Gendered Neoliberalization of the Chilean State. In: Mark
Goodale and Nancy Postero (eds.), Neoliberalism Interrupted: Social Change and Contested Governance in
Contemporary Latin America. Stanford University Press, 195–224.
Schubert, Karsten . 2020. Political Correctness als Privilegienkritik. Literaturwissenschaft in Berlin.
https://literaturwissenschaft-berlin.de/political-correctness-als-privilegienkritik/.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty . 1990. The Post-Colonial Critic. Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. New York, London:
Routledge.
Sproll, Martina . 2021 (forthcoming). Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains from a Perspective of Gendered
and Intersectional Social Inequalities. In: H . Herr; C . Teipen; P . Dünhaupt and F . Mehl (eds.), Economic
and Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains—An Interdisciplinary Comparison of Global South Countries and
Sectors. London: Palgrave.
Theurer, Karina and Wolfgang Kaleck . 2020. Dekoloniale Rechtskritik und Rechtspraxis. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Theurer, Karina and Wolfgang Kaleck . 2018. Das Recht der Mächtigen – die kolonialen Wurzeln des Völk-
errechts. In: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik. 105–10.
Walby, Sylvia . 2009. Globalization and Inequalities. Complexity and Contested Modernities. London: Sage.
World Bank Group. 2020. Women, Business and the Law 2020. Washington.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/32639/9781464815324.pdf.
Wotipka, Christine Min and Kiyoteru Tsutsui . 2008. Global Human Rights and State Sovereignty: State
Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties. In: Sociological Forum 23 (4), 724–754.
Young, Iris Marion . 2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Zwingel, Susanne . 2016. Translating International Women’s Rights. The CEDAW Convention in Context. London,
New York: Palgrave McMillan.You can also read
