MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800065770

Women on the Defensive

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

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConservatismPoliticsFeminismSociologyGovernment (linguistics)Gender studiesResistance (ecology)Public opinionSocial movementPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207