Change search
Refine search result
1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Eriksson, Maria
    Uppsala universitet.
    Biologically similar and anatomically different?: the one-sex model and the modern sex/gender distinction1998In: NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, ISSN 0803-8740, E-ISSN 1502-394X, Vol. 6, no 1, p. 31-38Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this article is to discuss some of the problems with the feminist theoretical concepts sex and gender and the distinction between them. The focus is on the American historian Thomas Laqueur's use of sex and gender and his concept of the one-sex model. In the critique of Laqueur and in the search for a more ''inclusive'' sex/gender concept, I draw primarily from the work of Lundgren and Kroon and their version of the concept of the symbolic body, which implies that it is impossible to distinguish between ''only'' body and the symbols of the body.

  • 2.
    Eriksson, Maria
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Forbidden actions: on women's organization and feminist theory2005In: NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, ISSN 0803-8740, E-ISSN 1502-394X, Vol. 13, no 1, p. 70-72Article, book review (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 3.
    Eriksson, Maria
    Uppsala universitet.
    Men's violence, men's parenting and gender politics in Sweden2002In: NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, ISSN 0803-8740, E-ISSN 1502-394X, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 6-15Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of the article is to open up for further discussion and empirical research on the relation of men's violence to men as parents. Drawing upon previous research on men's violence against women, it is suggested that a man's relationship with his partner and relationships with his children can be conceptualized as arenas linked to an overall process of gender constitution. Also discussed is how Swedish policy creates a context for men’s identity work and practices as parents that is enabling with regard to men’s access to children, but restraining with regard to action against men’s violence post-separation.

  • 4.
    Eriksson, Maria
    Uppsala universitet.
    Revolutionary mothers?: interacting power relations, agency, and social change2008In: NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, ISSN 0803-8740, E-ISSN 1502-394X, Vol. 16, no 2, p. 96-113Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this article a theoretical discussion about intersectionality is carried out in dialogue with the ways in which battered and separated mothers deal with their children’s situation and their relationship to their violent co-parents/ex-partners. In line with Connell’s (1987)[ argument that categories such as gender are shaped by several structures and that the social order is inherently instable due to historic “unevenness”, contradictions and internal differentiation, it is shown how abused mothers both follow and undermine well-established notions of childhood, gender, and parenthood when trying to tackle their situation post separation or divorce. What is, furthermore, shown is how their “doing” of age, gender and kinship entails both dichotomisation and neutralisation. It is argued that constructions prominent in public discussions about children at risk – the intrinsic value of childhood, children’s right to personal integrity and need of safety and protection – serve as a resource when the interviewees argue against the norm prescribing contact between children and fathers post separation and divorce. Two established constructions of the child’s best interest are set up against each other when the mothers try to undermine power associated with the father position. An empirically sensitive and actor centred intersectional analysis must be sophisticated enough to grasp such complexities if we are to be able to fully explore possibilities for social change.

1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf