VOX POPULI & FEMINISM:

FEMINIST RESEARCHER
1. Feminism, Feminists
Their Bad Name

NOTES

FROM

and

VOX POPULI: Feminism was good in its origins but I dont like those current
feminists who say that they can do it all by themselves and that do not need
men for anything; I dont like that stuff, it seems as if they hated men!
I started my PhD on media and gender studies two years ago. I travel very
often for personal and professional reasons, which has given me the opportunity
to meet a lot of people from very different places and from very different
academic disciplines and set of skills. When I am asked which kind of issues are
present in my thesis, feminism is the word that monopolizes the whole attention
and the subsequent debate. I have obtained a large number of varied opinions
from these conversations; some of them were expressed by people within the
academy (not only by feminists but also by other disciplines experts) and some
others came from a more general public. But, despite this huge variety of
people and opinions, it can be found a common point in all their assessments of
feminism: feminism was interesting and had a fair aim in its birth but today is
often referred to as unfashionable and irrelevant.
We should start with a clarification: feminism is not a word with a
homogenous meaning. There are as many feminisms as political ideologies and
cultural orders exist throughout the world. Then, a broad understanding of the
term and its defnitions includes a conglomerate of movements and agendas
for action that fights any kind of discrimination and sexism against women in
political, economic, social and private arenas (Gamba, 2007). In principle, this
defnition of feminism only implies a statement of social justice and makes
room for a whole range of social and political structures. It seems to be quite
well-balanced, uncontroversial and should not cause any dramatic reactions
among either men or women. Indeed, Baumgardner and Richards states that
when people are given these kind of definitions, public opinion polls confrm that
67 per cent of interviewees say they agree with feminism (Baumgardner and
Richards, 2000).
In the context of such a multifaceted movement, there is not a consensus
within the academy to classify and systematize the diverse branches of
feminism. Scholars specialized in gender studies have to confront difficulties
when trying to embrace and understand- the whole range of possibilities and
complexities that feminism encloses. Rosemarie Tong acknowledges in
Feminist Thought: a More Comprehensive Introduction that since she wrote her
frst introduction to that very same book nearly twenty years ago, she has
become increasingly convinced that feminist thought resists categorization into
tidy schools of thought (Tong, 2008). Feminism can be labelled differently
depending on the country it has its origins, the religious belief, the
philosophical approach, the political stance, and so on. We can speak about
liberal,
radical,
Marxist/socialist,
psychoanalytic,
care-focused,

multicultural/global/colonial, ecofeminism, and postmodern/third wave. To be

sure, this list of labels is incomplete and highly contestable (Tong, 2008).
It can be noted that trying to offer a comprehensive overview of current
feminist thought is an ambitious task. Then, it is understandable how confusion
reigns among the general public when imagining and trying to assess what
feminism is. What it can be argued is that all branches have shared objectives:
equal rights and opportunities for women. All feminisms recognize, to a greater or
lesser extent, that women are oppressed and exploited only by virtue of being
women. By organizing and taking action to promote changes, feminists evidence
their compromise with a fairer society. In relation to the various feminisms and
their commonalities, Joanne Martins words are illustrative: Although there are
many varieties of feminist theory, they share two objectives. The frst is
descriptive: to reveal obvious and subtle gender inequalities. The second is
change-oriented: to reduce or eradicate those inequalities. (Martin, 2003)
In Reclaiming the F Word, Redfern and Aune list the seven vital issues for
todays feminists: liberated bodies; sexual freedom and choice; end violence
against women; equality at work and home; transformation of politics and
religion; popular culture free from sexism; and feminism reclaimed (Redfern and
Aune, 2010). Every theme is present almost in every aspect of our personal and
professional lives. One may feel self-identified or agree with specific issues and
reject or disagree with others. Variety represents the difference in our lives,
refecting a diverse way of thinking and doing feminism.
Nevertheless, despite such multiplicity embraced by feminism, the words
feminist and feminism produce negative reactions very often. Many people
prefer to say that they are not feminists because they associate the term with
popular beliefs that defne feminists as ugly, angry and frustrated women,
lesbians, tomboys and man-haters. In fact, one of the most classic and widely
held assumptions is that feminism movement is composed of women who are
man-haters (Maier, 2008). But the truth is that these kind of beliefs and
popular misconceptions lack of empirical support. A study made by Anderson,
Kanner, and Elsayegh concluded that [c]ontrary to the common stereotype,
feminists in the present study reported lower levels of hostility toward men
than did nonfeminists. (Anderson et al., 2009). Their fndings are consistent
with those already made by Glick et al. in 2004. They investigated attitudes
toward men in a massive 16-nation study involving 8,360 participants. In
Feminism and Women's Rights Worldwide, Kanner and Anderson highlight that
*i+n terms of addressing the myth of feminists and man-haters, the Glick et al.
(2004) study () suggests that man-hating is linked more to anti-feminism and
gender inequality, than it is to feminism and gender equality (Kanner and
Anderson, 2009, Glick et al., 2004).
To conclude, as it has been discussed, people can feel more or less
comfortable with the current feminist movement goals and stances. But, given
the wide range of options that lies on it, it is somewhat irresponsible and
unfair -to say the least- to assess and even reject a whole multifaceted
movement under the premise of a single section or specifc ideas one do not
agree with.

2. Feminism and the Media. An (Un) Friendly Relationship.

VOX POPULI: Listen, Ive seen it on the telly and read a lot in magazines
and newspapers: feminists are not feminine at all; they do not wear makeup or
high heels And, arent all they lesbian?
As it has been critically observed by Julia T. Wood: Many people do not
identify as feminists and do not admire feminists or feminism because their
understandings
of
the
terms
have
been
shaped
by
media
misrepresentations(Wood, 2010). Rhodes, for her part, states that for those
interested in social movements in general and the womens movement in
particular attention must be given to how the media choose to present (or not
to present) () the womens movement (Rhodes, 1995).
As it can be noted, both Wood and Rhodes highlight the important
interconnection between the media and feminism. It is our contention here that
the media play a crucial role in shaping public consciousness and policy. In
order to explain the latter statement we must clarify that our starting point is
the premise that culture is learned. It is held that Cultural beliefs and
practices are usually so well learned that they seem perfectly natural, but they
are learned nonetheless (Andersen and Taylor, 2007). It is precisely because of
they seem natural that very few members of a given social order question and
defy its premises and values. The process of learning culture is commonly known
among sociologists as socialization and we cannot ignore the decisive role of
mass media, especially that of television, in such process. Morgan et al. note
that Television is a centralized system of storytelling. Its drama, commercials,
news and other programs bring a relatively coherent system of images and
messages into every home (Morgan et al., 2008). As far as gender
stereotypes are concerned, TV also elaborates and disseminates specific
messages. An audience who is exposed to the media from infancy absorbs from
television specific images and messages that can became part of their personal
set of beliefs, values and ideologies. Such ingrained messages could well cause
the potential result of being assumed as the natural order. Karen E. Dill refers
to this as the process in which audience learn about what other people are like
through certain representations of the world offered by TV shows or movies (Dill,
2009).
In the context of such a dynamic, the media provide spectators, readers
and listeners with biased reality versions of women experiences which can
cause the creation of an a priori opinion concerning gender relationships ()
(Alonso, 2004). In Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture, Julia T.
Wood gives us an example of this: Many people, like my student Andrea (),
say they arent feminists because they associate feminism with media
caricatures that emphasize male bashing, being unfeminine, and engaging in
radical protests (Wood, 2010).
Another instance of mass media powerful effects when conveying specific
messages is brought to light by Victoria Brescoll and Marianne LaFrance in
their research, The Correlates and Consequences of Newspaper Reports of
Research on Sex Differences. Their studies have revealed that newspapers
reports concerning scientific research on sex differences can be infuenced

by political stances and gender stereotypes and that such reporting in turn
affects readers beliefs and attitudes (Brescoll and LaFrance, 2004).
All this happens not only when we watch TV or read a newspaper but also
when we consume any other form of culture, from literature to cinema to the
music you like listening to. The feminist cause has to face many negative and -in
most cases- unjustifed messages and attacks. Anderson et al. acknowledge it
and state that In popular media such as talk radio, reality television, news
programs on television, Internet sites, movies, and
music, feminism is
situated culturally as an identity that depends on active hostility toward men.
(Anderson et al., 2009). Baumgardner and Richards give us another example of
the negative conceptions of feminism that can be found within the scope of the
omnipresent pop culture. Concretely, they highlight the defnition of feminists
given by Pat Robertson (TV Evangelist in the United States) and published in The
Washington Post, August 23, 1993:

The inadvertently humorous descriptions by Right-wing ideologues such as Pat

Robertson don't help, either: "Feminists encourage women to leave their
husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, become lesbians, and destroy
capitalism." Of course, that definition is not so much wrong as hyperbolic. To a
fundamentalist, that's just a description of no-fault divorce laws, abortion rights,
rejection of God as a Father, acceptance of female sexuality, and a commitment to
workers. (Baumgardner and Richards, 2000)

3. Biology: the pretext to sustain the status quo

VOX POPULI: Men and women will never be equal, we are inevitably
different. Its a matter of biology, you cannot change that. You can give birth!
Why have feminists to insist on this?
In effect, there are explicit physical differences between women and men
(concretely, the obvious different reproductive system). It would be fatuous to
state the opposite. The above statement turn out to be problematic because it is
precisely by virtue of physical differences that it has been justified for centuries
(and even nowadays) the unequal and unfair womens treatment. Baumgardner
and Richards argue that, as Susan Faludi (author of famed Backlash) and others
have indicated, protection starts out polite-women and children frst off the
sinking ship and so forth-and ends up justifying why women can't be naval
captains or fre fghters or subjects for medical research (Baumgardner and
Richards, 2000).
Some scholars and theorists have been sustaining for a long time and still
do- that men are more naturally wired to engage in logical thought as well
as being more ambitious, strong and unemotional than women. On the other
hand, archetypical female behavior is immediately linked with intuition,
weakness, dependence and empathy. For instance, according to Simon BaronCohen *t+he female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male
brain is predominantly hard- wired for understanding and building systems.
(Baron-Cohen, 2003). Authors as Alonso explains how the biological
determinism stance works: [f]rom a biological approach, the assignation of roles
comes from nature itself and from the obvious fact of womens reproductive

capacity. This biological circumstance is taken as a pretext to defne womens

individual and social behavior substantially different to that of men. She
continues and points out that although this approach is being more and more
dismantled stereotypes that place women within nature and outside of culture
are still wide-spread. Alonso describes the mechanisms by which this biological
determinism helps to maintain the status quo as far as gender prejudices is
concerned: The acceptance of nature as a justifcation of specific social roles
could be applied by extension to other ethnic groups or to people with some kind
of disability, which would justify the conservation of the established order based
on the acceptation of the impossibility of changes prejudice (Alonso, 2004).
Notwithstanding, in Delusions of Gender, Cordelia Fine develops a profound
analysis of some of the theories that have emerged in our contemporary society
to justify the biological inevitability. She dismantles those versions of
evolutionary psychology that promoted the idea that our brain has been
designed by natural selection to keep humans alive in the environment of our
hunter-gatherer ancestors:

But our brains, as we are now coming to understand, are changed by our
behaviour, our thinking, our social world. The new neuroconstructivist perspective of
brain development emphasizes the sheer exhilarating tangle of a continuous
interaction among genes, brain and environment. (Fine, 2010)

Furthermore, contrarily to what biological determinism theories suggest,

other researchers have pointed out that gender stereotypes themselves could
well cause that men outperform women in specific fields (and vice versa). We
now know that gender stereotypes can affect peoples perceptions of their
abilities (Fine, 2010). Given this fnding, it wouldnt be surprising that women
and mens career choices and paths can be infuenced by pre-determined
expectations for both sexes (Fine, 2010). Recently, Nosek et al. carried out a
study in which citizens of 34 countries completed about 70% of more than
half a million Implicit Association Tests (IATs). As they highlight, the study
revealed that implicit stereotypes and sex differences in science participation
and performance are mutually reinforcing, contributing to the persistent
gender gap in science engagement (Nosek et al., 2009).

Motherhood: The Precious and Appreciated? Gift

VOX POPULI: biological differences (concretely the fact that women give
birth) make an inevitable difference in the interaction between a man and a
woman.
This statement is not only arguable but also somewhat confusing. Which kind
of differences is it referring to? If we think about a certain degree of kindness
towards a pregnant woman, it is not of course a problematic difference;
wouldnt all of us like to be helped or looked after when we are going through
exceptional circumstances? On the other hand, an intolerable attitude is that in
which the behavioral diff erence i mplie s hindrance, impediments, and

underestimation. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, motherhood is a controversial

issue. The author, a woman in her 30s with no children, have had numerous
personal experiences regarding this topic in her conversations with men, and
other women too. Some issues that have arisen in discussions include
statements such as you are getting too old to have babies, never say in a job
interview that you want to have children or there are jobs that you could not
do in advance states of pregnancy (like fre fghter of police woman). Authors
experiences, shared with other women, also include that some men express the
injustice of the fact that they cannot leave work as women do when they go
home to deliver their babies. But then, it would be possible to argue that it is
also unfair that women are subjected to redundancy, to hiring restrictions and
career advancement obstacles simply because they have the natural potential
to get pregnant. Is not this an obvious different treatment and behaviour towards
women? Unfortunately, though this is fagrantly unfair it is the crude reality. A
UKs government review found that mothers face more discrimination than
any other group in the workplace(Banyard, 2010c, 2007) and as Banyard
highlights (from the same report), getting hired is a somewhat tricky business
considering that 70 per cent of recruitment agencies have been asked by clients
to avoid hiring women of childbearing age or those that are pregnant
(Banyard, 2010c, Cochrane, 2008).
A deep thought on the issue of childbearing arises many interesting topics
and points of view. In developed countries and in the context of deeply rooted
capitalism societies, the fact that a woman has to leave work for several months
to deliver and take care of their babies has an economic impact to private
companies. Indeed, it could be argued that, at frst glance and thinking only in
the short term, this is true: women are less productive because they take
time out to give birth and rear children. This also causes a vicious and
harmful circle for women in which they have difficulties to catch up with
someone who is continuously employed and therefore learning and acquiring
new skills. Clearly, women should have lower income. But if we go through
this in more depth very interesting fndings will come up. When delivering a
baby, women are bringing to life human beings, that is, new labour power,
shouldnt it be considered a beneft in the long term? Maxine Udall offers a very
clear and enlightened refection on this. She points out the inadequacy of the
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as a measure of a nations wealth and wellbeing and resorts to unpaid housework to illustrate her arguments:

But what about all that non-market work women are cranking out? The stuff for which
they don't get paid? Child care, child birth (production of the future units of economic
production for those of you who like to think of children as durable goods)... how
about mother's milk that builds bodies and immune systems 40 different ways? None
of that shows up in GDP () Just pretend for a moment that you are an economist
and imagine women as owner-managers of little child production and child rearing
factories. Remember, the "output" here is healthy, educated kids who grow up to
contribute to society, from which we all benefit. The extent to which they are healthy
and educated depends greatly on decisions made by parents, but especially by
mothers who spend more time with them and have primary responsibility for their
prenatal health and development () Much of what they (mothers) do to produce
healthy, educated kids is not captured in GDP because it isn't traded in a market.
(Udall, 2010)

She also highlights a research work by Kathleen Garrett and Nancy Cloud
which suggest that the contribution of women's nonmarket productive output
to total societal output (and therefor to a global measure of societal wellbeing) is considerable, ranging from 21% to over 50% of GDP across 132
countries. None of it is captured by traditional estimates of GDP (Udall,
2010, Cloud and Garrett, 1997).
Unfortunately these kinds of misconceptions persist in the name of the
ideological foundations of the western masculinist-capitalism. In Women and
Revolution, Heidi Hartmann refects on womens oppression and its relationship
with patriarchy and capitalism:

They (early Marxists) did not focus on the feminist questions how and why
women are oppressed as women. They did not, therefore, recognize the vested
interest men had in womens continued subordination () men benefited from not
having to do housework, from having their wives and daughters serve them, and
from having the better places in the labor market. Patriarchal relations far from
being atavistic leftovers, being rapidly outmoded by capitalism, as the early Marxists
suggested, have survived and thrived alongside it. (Hartmann, 1999)

As it has been pointed out, domestic labour is openly underestimated and

neglected in the market realm. Since it is not considered a good or a service, it
is therefore, unreckoned in the GDP. In 1997, a report by GPIAtlantic (an
independent, non-proft research and education organization) concluded
*n]ova Scotians each contribute an average of 1,230 hours a year of unpaid
household work to the economy, for a total of 941 million hours in 1997, the
equivalent of 490,000 full-year full-time jobs. This is 25% more than the 707
million hours Nova Scotians worked for pay in 1997

(Colman, 1998). Riane Eisler (author of The Chalice and The Blade) gave a
speech at the World's Women Forum in Barcelona, (Spain, July 2004) in which
she stressed that there is a

[s]ystemic devaluation of women and the work of caregiving. This devaluation has
shaped the economic models and rules. And indeed as long as these rules and
models are in place, we women will remain on the periphery. Already women are in
the U.S. quitting high paying corporate jobs because of the double burden of
women, of the difficulty, indeed almost impossibility, of balancing jobs with
caregiving responsibilities at home. The media then tell us women should return to
their natural place in a male- headed family. (Eisler, 2004)

In her article, The Economic Value of Housework Gerencher also recalls

the words of Riane Eisler concerning the laborious, tedious and undervalued
house work: the stigma of unpaid labor is unabated () [w]e pay more in the
monetized economy to people who park your car than to people with whom we
entrust our children. It's all part of the so-called devaluation of women's work
of caregiving" (Gerencher, 2001)
4. The Frightening Womens Empowerment
VOX POPULI: What turns out to be very scary is women asking for more
power, they say that women have to gain more power; and I ask, even more?
Do you women really need more power?
To be sure, women need more power. Power in this context has to be
understood as the womens freedom of thought, religion and expression and
the capacity to access and administrate the resources with no restrictions, in
the same condition as the majority of men can do. Batliwala (1994) defned
empowerment as the process by which the powerless gain greater control
over circumstances of their lives. It includes both control over resources
(physical, human, intellectual, fnancial) and over ideology (beliefs, values, and
attitudes) (Batliwala, 1994). This is extended to their decision-making
capabilities concerning issues such as employment, sexuality, fertility and their
education among others (Singh et al., 2010, Gurumurthy, 1998, Dison and
Moore, 1983).
For those people who still think that women have achieved complete
equality, it is important to make something clear: as Banyards book title
states, equality between women and men is an illusion (Banyard, 2010a).
New legislations and positive discrimination policies can make ordinary people
believe that equality has been achieved. But just because it is officially illegal
to pay women less than men for equal work, to sack them for being pregnant, or
to sexually harass them, it doesnt mean these things dont go on (Banyard,
2010c). It is not so difficult to fnd out a great amount of data reporting the
unfair situation of vast numbers of women in the world. Before stating things like
do women really need more power? or women have achieved equality,
what else is feminism looking for? one should take a moment to read through
some interesting and clarifying statistics. For instance, in some regions, women
provide upwards of 70% of agricultural labour, and produce over 90% of the
foodyet are nowhere represented in budget deliberations (Lopez-Claros and

Zahidi, 2005). Banyard, for her part, hithlights that () poverty has a female
face: 70 per cent of those living on $1 or less a day are women and two thirds of
the 780 million people who are illiterate are also women (Banyard, 2010b, DFID,
2007).
The World's Women is a United Nations report produced every fve years
that highlights the differences in the status of women and men in areas such
as violence against women, health, education, work and poverty among
others. The data provided is based on statistics from international and national
statistical sources (UN, 2010). Among the numerous findings of the report,

we can fnd, for instance, that women are subjected to different forms of
violence physical, sexual, psychological and economic both within and
outside their homes and that such violence is most often perpetrated by their
intimate partners. Moreover, from several per cent to over 59 per cent of women
throughout the world will experience physical violence at least once in their
lifetime (UN, 2010).
Julia T. Wood comments on violence against women in Gendered Lives. She
specifcally recalls that a student told her that Gendered Lives bashes
men(Wood, 2010). When she asked her students to explain why they
thought that, they told her that the book paid more attention to
discrimination against women than to discrimination against men. She gives
her point of view with respect to this:

Like any scholar, what I write depends largely on available information. Existing
research shows that, although both men and women experience violence from
intimate partners, 95% of people who are known to be physically abused by
romantic partners are women (Johnson, 2006; Wood, 2004). It would be inaccurate to
give equal space to discussion of men who are physically abused by intimate
partners. The same is true of sexual harassment: Although members of both sexes
are sexually harassed, most victims are women. The only way I could present a
gender balanced discussion of sexual harassment would be to misrepresent facts.
(Wood, 2010)

Feminism in not about denying the pressures men face in their daily life.
They have also to conform to specific models of masculinity in order to be
considered successful men. It causes a constrictive dynamic in which men
have to balance their own personal desires with social perspectives regarding
their professional and personal lives. Of course, men also face very stressful
and unfair situations when their priorities, plans and expectations are different
to what is expected from them. Nevertheless, feminists are fercely criticized
very often just because they seem to pay more attention to womens issues
than to mens. Whenever it happens, it should be remembered what the
situation of women has been for centuries in given societies. Arati Rao, scholar
of feminist political theory and women's rights, condense it in a single
statement: [n]o social group has suffered greater violation of its human rights in
the name of culture than women (Rao, 1995).

References:
2007. Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review. The
Equalities Review.
London.
ALONSO, A. J. 2004. Los Estudios en el rea de la Comunicacin Audiovisual
Desde la Perspectiva de Gnero. Mujeres en los Medios: Imagen y
Presencia Femenina en las Televisiones Pblicas : Canal Sur TV Icaria.
ANDERSEN, M. L. & TAYLOR, H. F. 2007. Culture. Sociology: Understanding
a Diverse Society.
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ANDERSON, K. J., KANNER, M. & ELSAYEGH, N. 2009. Are Feminists Man

Haters? Feminists' and Nonfeminists' Attitudes Toward Men. Phychology
of Women Quarterly, 33, 216-224.
BANYARD, K. 2010a. The Equality Illusion. The Truth About Women & Men Today,
Faber and Faber
Limited.
BANYARD, K. 2010b. Introduction. The Equality Illusion. The Truth About
Women & Men Today.
Faber and Faber Limited.
BANYARD, K. 2010c. Sexism and The City. The Equality Illusion. The Truth
About Women & Men Today. Faber and Faber Limited.

BARON-COHEN, S. 2003. The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme
Male Brain, London, Allen Lane
BATLIWALA, S. 1994. The Meaning of Womens Empowerment: New Concepts
from Action. In: SEN,
G., GERMAIN, A. & CHEN, L. C. (eds.) Population Policies
Reconsidered: Health, Empowerment and Rights. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
BAUMGARDNER, J. & RICHARDS, A. 2000. What is Feminism? Manifesta: Young
Women, Feminism,
and
the
Future
Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
BRESCOLL, V. & LAFRANCE, M. 2004. The Correlates and Consequences of
Newspaper Reports of Research on Sex
Differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515-520.
CLOUD, K. & GARRETT, N. 1997. A Modest Proposal for Inclusion of Women's
Household Human Capital Production in Analysis of Structural
Transformation. Feminist Economics 3, 151-177.
COCHRANE, K. 2008. You're Fired. The Guardian [Online]. Available:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/worklifebalance.discriminat
ionatwork?INT CMP=SRCH [Accessed 20 April 2011].
COLMAN, R. 1998. The Economic Value of Unpaid Housework and Child Care in
Nova Scotia In:
ATLANTIC,
G.
(ed.)
Measuring
Sustainable
Development. GPI Atlantic.
DFID, DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2007. Gender
Equality at the Heart of Development: Why the Role of Women is Crucial
to Ending World Poverty. Department for International Development.
DILL, K. E. 2009. Fantasy and Reality: A Primer on Media and Social
Construction. How Fantasy Becomes Reality: Seeing Through Media
Influence
Oxford University Press, Inc.
DISON, T. & MOORE, M. 1983. On Kinship Structure, Female Autonomy, and
Demografic Behavior in India. Population and Development Review, 9, 3560.
EISLER, R. 2004. Revisioning the Economic Rules: Empowering Women and
Changing the World (Plenary Session). World's Women Forum. Barcelona
(Spain).
FINE, C. 2010. Delusions of Gender. The Real Science Behing Sex Differences, Icon
Books Ltd
GAMBA, S. B. 2007. Feminismo: Historia y Corrientes. Mujeres en Red. El Peridico
Feminista [Online].
Available: http://www.mujeresenred.net/spip.php?article1397 [Accessed 30
March 2011]. GERENCHER, K. 2001. The Economic Value of Housework. New
Survey to Track Women-Dominated
Labor. MarketWatch [Online]. Available:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the- economic-value-ofhousework [Accessed 6 April 2011].
GLICK, P., LAMEIRAS, M., FISKE, S. T., ECKES, T., MASSER, B., VOLPATO, C.,
MANGANELLI, A. M., PEK, J.
C. X., HUANG, L.-L., SAKALLI-UURLU, N., CASTRO, Y. R., PEREIRA, M. L. D.
A., WILLEMSEN, T.

M., BRUNNER, A., SIX-MATERNA, I. & WELLS, R. 2004. Bad but Bold:
Ambivalent Attitudes Toward Men Predict Gender Inequality in
16
Nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728.
GURUMURTHY, A. 1998. Women's Rights and Status: Questions of Analisys
and Measurement.
Gender
in
Development
Monograph 7.
HARTMANN, H. 1999. The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism:
Towards a More Progressive Union. In: SARGENT, L. (ed.) Women and
Revolution: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and
Feminism South End Press.
KANNER, M. & ANDERSON, K. J. 2009. The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist. In:
PALUDI, M. A. (ed.)
Feminism and Women's Rights Worldwide
Praeger Publishers
LOPEZ-CLAROS, A. & ZAHIDI, S. 2005. Womens Empowerment: Measuring the
Global Gender Gap.
World
Economic
Forum.
MAIER, S. L. 2008. Are Rape Crisis Centers Feminist Organizations? Feminist
Criminology, 3, 20. MARTIN, J. 2003. Feminist Theory and Critical Theory:
Unexplored Synergies. In: ALVESSON, M. &
WILLMOTT, P. H. (eds.) Studying Management Critically Sage
Publications Ltd.

MORGAN, M., SHANAHAN, J. & SIGNORIELLI, N. 2008. Growing Up With

Television: Cultivation Processes. In: BRYANT, J. & OLIVER, M. B. (eds.)
Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 3rd ed.: Routledge.
NOSEK, B. A., SMYTH, F. L., SRIRAM, N., LINDNER, N. M., DEVOS, T., AYALA, A., BARANAN, Y., BERGH,
B., CAI, H., GONSALKORALE, K., KESEBIR, S., MALISZEWSKI, N., NETO, F.,
OLLI, E., PARK, J., SCHNABEL, K., SHIOMURA, K., TULBURE, B. T., WIERS,
R., SOMOGYI, M., AKRAMI, N., EKEHAMMAR, B., VIANELLO, M., BANAJI,
M. R. & GREENWALD, A. G. 2009. National
Differences in Gender-Science Stereotypes Predict National Sex
Differences in Science and Math Achievement. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106.
RAO, A. 1995. The Politics of Gender and Culture in International Human Rights
Discourse. In: PETERS,
J. S. & WOLPER, A. (eds.) Women's Rights, Human Rights: International
Feminist Perspectives
Routled
ge.
REDFERN, C. & AUNE, K. 2010. Reclaiming the F Word. The New Feminist
Movement, Zed Books Ltd. SINGH, A. K., SAH, P. & MISHRA, O. P. 2010. Women
Empowerment. In: JAIN, P. K., HANSRA, B. S.,
CHAKRABORTY, K. S. & KURUP, J. (eds.) Sustainable Food Security.
Mittal Publications. TONG, R. 2008. Feminist Thought: a More
Comprehensive Introduction Westview Press.
UDALL, M. 2010. Protecting Our Grandchildren: The High Price of
Motherhood. Available from: http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/08/theprice-of-motherhood.html [Accessed 6 April 2011.
UN, UNITED NATIONS 2010. The World's Women 2010. Trends and Statistics.
New York: UN, United Nations.
WOOD, J. T. 2010. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture,
Wadsworth Publishing.