IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v40y2010i3p412-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Two-Way Street: Federalism and Women's Politics in Canada and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Jill Vickers

Abstract

Contributing to the gender and federalism debate, this article explores how characteristics and historical legacies of the Canadian and U.S. federations shape women's activism. Following discussion of three positions gender scholars and activists hold regarding federalism, their shared view that federalism is gendered is explored. Reversing the causal arrow to compare how organized women circumvent or change obstructive federal arrangements, the text uses abortion rights campaigning to illustrate. It shows that the weaker pan-Canadian women's movement succeeded in effecting constitutional and judicial change because of a favorable division of powers and preoccupation with Quebec. But a negative historical legacy and division of powers, counter-movements and partisan polarization limited the stronger U.S. movement to circumvention strategies. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill Vickers, 2010. "A Two-Way Street: Federalism and Women's Politics in Canada and the United States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 412-435, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:3:p:412-435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjq006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anne Marie Goetz & Rob Jenkins, 2018. "Feminist Activism and the Politics of Reform: When and Why Do States Respond to Demands for Gender Equality Policies?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 49(3), pages 714-734, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:3:p:412-435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.