MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2800065770

Women on the Defensive

2000· article· en· W2800065770 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sylvia Bashevkin, Lois Harder

Notice bibliographique

RevueResources for feminist research · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConservatismPoliticsFeminismSociologyGovernment (linguistics)Gender studiesResistance (ecology)Public opinionSocial movementPolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

WOMEN ON THE DEFENSIVE: LIVING THROUGH CONSERVATIVE TIMESSylvia BashevkinChicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998; 318 pp.Reviewed by Lois HarderDepartment of Political ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, AlbertaSylvia Bashevkin's Women on the Defensive analyses the impact of Conservative governments on women's demands for equal rights, family law reform, reproductive choice, protection against violence and employment rights in Britain, the United States and Canada. Bashevkin's book is systematic. She provides a recounting of women's movement successes previous to the election of Conservative governments, an analysis of feminist encounters with the Thatcher/Major, Reagan/Bush and Mulroney administrations and a discussion of the dynamics of women's interaction with their successors. On the basis of interviews with over 100 activists, the biographies, autobiographies and public statements of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney and the analysis of public documents and judicial decisions, Bashevkin reveals that while women's groups in each country faired worse under Conservative regimes than they had under their predecessors, the specificities of Conservatism in each country were key to determining the character and degree of resistance to feminist gains. The book would be particularly useful for second or third year political science classes concerning women and politics, comparative politics, and social movements. Chapters might also be usefully extracted for women's studies courses addressing feminism and social change and as an example of liberal feminist analysis.Women on the Defensive's primary theoretical engagement is not with feminist work but with the literature of comparative federalism and systems of government. In this context, Bashevkin challenges David Truman's assertion that unitary governments, such as that of Britain, are more responsive to social movement demands than federal governments (the U.S. and Canada) due to the centralization of decision-makers. Truman is a peculiar choice. He was writing in the early 1950s when the welfare state was only beginning to take shape and well before the social movements that would eventually insist on the egalitarian promise of liberal democratic welfare states were asserting their demands. Certainly the Canadian literature on feminist organizing has long acknowledged the usefulness to activists of playing two levels of government against each other. Secondly, and, as she asserts, more importantly, Bashevkin challenges the assertion that congressional forms of government, with their weak party discipline and distinct separation of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government, are more responsive to diffuse interest group demands than Parliamentary systems, due to the multiple points at which group representatives may assert their claims. Women on the Defensive, she argues, reveals that the presence or absence of constitutionally guaranteed rights was a better indicator of the ability of women to defend equality gains from conservative attack than a particular institutional configuration.The cases of Britain, the United States and Canada are considered in each chapter of Women on the Defensive. In the first chapter, Bashevkin traces the emergence of the women's movement beginning with suffrage struggles, through the second wave and their subsequent encounters with conservatism in the 1980s. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,802
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,132
Tête enseignante GPT0,385
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResources for feminist researchMême sujetPolitical and Economic history of UK and USTravaux en français237 207