ABSTRACT
This reply explores the implications raised by a scholarly conversation among the pieces by Cramer, Cote Hampson, and McNulty in this special issue of Global Discourse. Cramer’s piece argues that midwives and women living in states where home births are legally attended by Certified Professional Midwives continue to experience confusion about legal status, and chilling social approbation that constrains access to reproductive choice. Cote Hampson argues that women in hierarchical professions in the United States, as typified by academia and the military, often refuse to avail themselves of policies meant to facilitate work-life balance, in large part because they understand accessing maternity leave to be a stereotyped behavior that weakens employers’ perception of them as ideal workers. And, McNulty’s research shows that procedural changes meant to facilitate – indeed mandate – women’s participation in participatory-budgeting regimes in Peru may increase the presence of women in these meetings, but do not increase their actual, meaningful participation. In light of the findings of all three pieces, that women’s access to rights is not meaningfully expanded by procedural changes, this comment asks whether legal venues and procedural changes are the best ways by which women can assert claims to equality, equity, and justice.
This is a reply to:
Cote Hampson, S. 2018. “Mothers Do Not Make Good Workers: The Role of Work/Life Balance Policies in Reinforcing Gendered Stereotypes.” Global Discourse. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2018.1521129">10.1080/23269995.2018.1521129.
and
McNulty, S. 2018. “Embedded exclusions: exploring gender equality in Peru’s participatory democratic framework.” Global Discourse. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2018.1521137">10.1080/23269995.2018.1521137.
