Rethinking the Participation of Women’s Movements in the Decision-making Processes: A Critical Analysis of Mexico and Chile’s Feminist Foreign Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines feminist foreign policy, which aims to integrate the aim of gender equality across foreign policy. First adopted by Sweden in 2014 and followed by countries such as Canada (2017), France (2019), Mexico (2020), Spain (2021), Luxembourg (2021), Germany (2021) and Chile (2022), feminist foreign policy relies on gender-focused foreign policies and programs designed and implemented by governments that commit to women’s rights and gender equality. However, since states hold more extensive ownership over the form of feminist foreign policies and women’s movements are not primarily included in the decision-making processes, the extent to which feminist foreign policy is imagined and applied has usually been very controversial. In the Global South countries, where the status of women and gender equality is painfully poor, the contradictions and tensions that emerge during the implementation of feminist foreign policy are more apparent. This paper will attempt to analyze the contradictions of this process through a comparative critical analysis of both Mexico and Chile’s contemporary feminist foreign policy agendas. Feminist foreign policy builds on strong women’s movements and the strategies feminists advocate in both countries. Nevertheless, since both progressive governments have failed to improve their relationship with social movements, feminist foreign policy does little to advance women's rights, representation, and resources (3Rs) in these countries. The paper argues that without the meaningful participation of women’s movements, feminist foreign policy would only be a discursive tool to legitimize state policies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".