Book Review: Women’s Rights to Social Security and Social Protection, edited by Beth Goldblatt & Lucie Lamarche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women's Rights to Social Security and Social Protection 1 is a collection of essays that explores a gendered perspective on social security rights.The book includes both theoretical perspectives on gendered social security rights and examples of social security programs around the world.The inclusion of international case studies makes the book a valuable source of information, particularly for those undertaking comparative research into social welfare rights or the global impact of social welfare rights on women.The book's examination of international standards for social welfare rights and the contrast with domestic programs also raises interesting questions about global compliance with international standards and norms.The use of wideranging feminist frameworks and international comparative analysis also contributes to the advancement of women's social security rights.The book is divided into four parts.Part I sets up a theoretical foundation for the examination of social security through a gendered lens.The second part takes a global approach to gender and poverty with an analysis of social protection regimes in China, Bolivia and Chile.The essays in Part III look at welfare systems in "rich countries" such as the United States, Canada, and Australia.Part IV analyzes social security rights in the context of austerity following the global financial crisis of 2008, with a focus on Ireland, Australian, and Spain.Central themes that run throughout the essays in the collection include the vulnerable position of women in social welfare regimes throughout the world, international attempts to set standards for social protection for women, drastic cuts to social security in times of economic crisis, and the intersection of gender and other identities such as race, age, and class. 2 The collection also illuminates the pertinent struggles faced by women throughout the world in accessing social security and social protection in a dignified and non-discriminatory way.Sandra Fredman's chapter on "Engendering Social Welfare Rights" in Part I of the collection sets up the model of substantive equality that will run through most of the subsequent chapters examining social welfare systems in a number of countries.Fredman's model evaluates social welfare programs through the four goals of substantive equality: redressing disadvantage; addressing stigma, stereotyping, humiliation, and violence; accommodating difference and transforming institutions; and facilitating participation. 3 The four dimensions of the substantive equality model allow for an analysis of social welfare that goes beyond the mere content of the services provided to look at the way the recipients of social welfare are treated and their level of participation in the system.Hester Lessard's chapter, "Participatory Inclusion and Women's Rights to Social Security," further develops the nature and content of participation as part of a
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.015 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".