首页> 外文期刊>Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society >Putting Intersectionality into Practice in Different Configurations of Equality Architecture: Belgium and the Netherlands
【24h】

Putting Intersectionality into Practice in Different Configurations of Equality Architecture: Belgium and the Netherlands

机译:在平等建筑的不同配置中实践交叉性:比利时和荷兰

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Crenshaw's powerful take against “thinking about subordination as disadvantage occurring along a single categorical axis” ( 1989, University of Chicago Legal Forum) has been taken up by many scholars and practitioners as a major challenge in legal and policy development. Yet, although her criticism is clear, the implications for practice are not. This article asks what happens when legal frameworks and institutional bodies are fragmented and at the outset not designed for intersectionality. Using the cases of the Netherlands with one equality body to deal with matters of anti-discrimination but a fragmented legal framework, and Belgium, disposing of an integrated legal framework but a separate equality body to deal with issues of gender discrimination, the article examines the potential for adopting an intersectional approach in practice. It concludes that both equality architectures have their limits, but that the Dutch one looks more promising for an intersectional approach.
机译:Crenshaw坚决反对“将从属视为在单一类别轴上发生的劣势”(1989年,芝加哥大学法律论坛),已被许多学者和从业者接受为法律和政策制定的主要挑战。然而,尽管她的批评很明确,但对实践的意义却不明确。本文询问当法律框架和机构主体分散且一开始不是为交叉设计时,会发生什么情况。文章利用荷兰的一个平等机构的案件来处理反歧视问题,但法律框架支离破碎,比利时利用一个综合的法律框架,但一个单独的平等机构来处理性别歧视问题,研究了在实践中采用交叉方法的潜力。结论是,两种平等架构都有其局限性,但荷兰人似乎更希望采用交叉方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号