Votre recherche

La littérature scientifique a exploré de nombreux aspects relatifs à la notion de « violence », mais elle n’a jamais cherché à l’appréhender, à notre connaissance, en termes de généalogie vis-à-vis des mouvements féministes. Il s’avère par ailleurs que la formulation du concept de « violence obstétricale » est récente alors que l’expérience est ancienne. C’est ce paradoxe que cet article interroge. Plus précisément, cette contribution vise à élucider comment les mouvements féministes ont pu jouer un rôle facilitateur dans l’émergence de ce concept dont la généalogie s’ancre dans la réflexivité hospitalière et les mouvements féministes. En se saisissant de l’observation d’une association féministe engagée dans la pratique des accouchements alternatifs, cette étude vise à appréhender comment les dynamiques militantes ont ouvert la voie à ce nouveau concept. La recherche de terrain a permis d’identifier deux postures à partir d’entretiens mené auprès des usagères du système hospitalier. L’analyse de l’histoire de cette association montre que c’est un compromis interne à la rencontre entre ces deux postures qui a favorisé un espace de parole pour les parturientes et des négociations avec l’hôpital local pour des réalisations concrètes. La discussion analyse ces deux postures au prisme des points de vue féministes universaliste et différencialiste, ainsi que de la sociologie du corps. La conclusion interroge cette dynamique des mouvements sociaux, se demandant si on peut y observer un processus analogue.

In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.

Discrimination has historically contributed to coercive contraceptive in the United States. We investigated associations between perceived discrimination, or the perception of unequal treatment in everyday life, and contraceptive method use among U.S. women. We analyzed population-based data from a 2013 study of U.S. women who were premenopausal, age 18–50, sexually active with a male partner in the last year and were not attempting pregnancy. Perceived discrimination was measured using the Everyday Discrimination Scale. Contraceptive method use was categorized into five method categories: permanent, highly effective reversible, moderately effective, barrier and no method. We analyzed relationships between perceived discrimination and contraceptive method use with several regression models, controlling for covariates. Among 539 women in our analytic sample, those with high perceived discrimination had lower incomes, less educational attainment and were less likely to be insured. Perceived discrimination was associated with a reduced odds of using any contraceptive method (aOR 0.43, CI 0.21–0.87, p < .001). Contraceptive method users with high perceived discrimination had an increased odds of using highly effective reversible methods versus moderately effective methods (aOR 5.28, CI 1.63–17.07 p = < .001). Women who perceived discrimination were at risk for contraceptive nonuse; however, among contraceptive users, perceived discrimination was associated with the use of more effective reversible methods.

Are sex and gender really two different things? How malleable is gender identity? Do both gender and sex have to be conceptualized as binaries—as having two distinct but complementary categories? Should we emphasize gender differences, or is that the wrong question? When should we call a gender difference “small”? Are women really “nonaggressive” or does that label stem from stereotyping? How does subtle or “modern” sexism work on its targets? Scholarship on these and other gender-related questions has exploded in recent years. Hilary Lips synthesizes that research for students in an accessible and readable way. Concepts on sex and gender are presented with the social context in which they were developed. As in previous editions, Lips takes a multicultural approach, discussing the gender experiences of people from a wide range of races, cultures, socioeconomic statuses, and gender and sexual identities. She emphasizes empirical research but takes a critical approach to that research.

"Gender: Psychological Perspectives" synthesizes the latest research on gender to help students think critically about the differences between research findings and stereotypes, provoking them to examine and revise their own preconceptions. The text examines the behavioral, biological, and social contexts in which women and men express gendered behaviors. The text's unique pedagogical program helps students understand the portrayal of gender in the media and the application of gender research in the real world. -- From publisher's description. Contenu : Preface -- Acknowledgements -- About the author -- The study of gender -- Researching sex and gender -- Gender stereotypes: masculinity and femininity -- Hormones and chromosomes -- Theories of gender development -- Developing gender identity -- Intelligence and cognitive abilities -- Emotion -- Relationships -- Sexuality -- School -- Careers and work -- Health and fitness -- Stress, coping, and psychopathology -- Treatment for mental disorders -- How different? -- References -- Index.

Informed by intersectionality theory, a tradition that theorizes intersecting power relations of racism, patriarchy, classism and heterosexism, this paper investigates the degree to which race, gender, class and sexuality manifest distinct and interconnected associations with self-reported hypertension in nationally-representative survey data from Canada. Binary logistic regression is used to model the main effects of, and interactions between, race, gender, education, household income and sexual orientation on hypertension, controlling for age, using data from the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 90,310). From a main effects (‘additive’) perspective, Black respondents, respondents with less than high school and poorer respondents were significantly more likely than White respondents, university-educated Canadians and wealthier Canadians, respectively, to report hypertension. However, the interactive models indicate that the additive models were poor predictors of hypertension for wealthy Black men, wealthy South Asian women, women with less than a high school diploma and wealthy bisexual respondents, who were more likely than expected to report hypertension, and for poor Black men, poor South Asian women, poor South Asian men and women with a university degree, who were less likely than expected to report hypertension. It appears that, with regard to blood pressure at least, Canadians experience the health effects of education differently by their genders and the health effects of income differently by their identities defined at the intersection of race and gender. This study provides empirical support for the intersectional approach to cardiovascular health inequalities by demonstrating that race, gender, class and sexuality cannot be disentangled from one another as predictors of hypertension.

Les différences psychologiques entre les sexes suscitent un intérêt considérable, tant dans les milieux de la recherche que dans les médias. On ne compte plus le nombre de publications scientifiques, d’ouvrages de vulgarisation ou de reportages consacrés à ces questions. Pourtant, une large part de l’information diffusée tient davantage du préjugé, du parti pris idéologique, que d’une démarche scientifique rigoureuse. Les femmes seraient ainsi plus douces, mieux disposées à prendre soin des autres, incapables de lire une carte routière, alors que les hommes seraient bons en maths, compétitifs, plus agressifs. Comment expliquer la persistance de tels mythes aujourd’hui encore ?C’est de ce constat, et d’un certain sentiment d’exaspération, qu’est né le présent ouvrage. Il réunit des chercheures de différentes disciplines : neurobiologie, psychologie, sociologie, science politique. S’appuyant, notamment, sur les données les plus récentes en neurosciences et en psychologie comparée des sexes, ces dernières proposent une synthèse des connaissances actuelles et une réflexion sur la différenciation psychologique des sexes, sur l’orientation sexuelle et sur les notions de sexe et de genre inspirée des textes d’auteures féministes. Il ne s’agit plus de savoir si le cerveau a un sexe, mais si cette question est pertinente et, surtout, pour qui ? Des textes de Line Chamberland, professeure au département de sexologie de l’UQAM et titulaire de la Chaire de recherche sur l’homophobie de l’UQAM ; Louise Cossette, professeure au département de psychologie de l’UQAM et membre de l’Institut de recherches et d’études féministes (IREF) de l’UQAM ; Chantal Maillé, professeure à l’Institut Simone de Beauvoir à l’Université Concordia et Catherine Vidal, neurobiologiste, directrice de recherche à l’Institut Pasteur de Paris.

"Les différences psychologiques entre les sexes suscitent un intérêt considérable, tant dans les milieux de la recherche que dans les médias. On ne compte plus le nombre de publications scientifiques, d'ouvrages de vulgarisation ou de reportages consacrés à ces questions. Pourtant, une large part de l'information diffusée tient davantage du préjugé, du parti pris idéologique, que d'une démarche scientifique rigoureuse. Les femmes seraient ainsi plus douces, mieux disposées à prendre soin des autres, incapables de lire une carte routière, alors que les hommes seraient bons en maths, compétitifs, plus agressifs. Comment expliquer la persistance de tels mythes aujourd'hui encore ? C'est de ce constat, et d'un certain sentiment d'exaspération, qu'est né le présent ouvrage. Il réunit des chercheures de différentes disciplines : neurobiologie, psychologie, sociologie, science politique. S'appuyant, notamment, sur les données les plus récentes en neurosciences et en psychologie comparée des sexes, ces dernières proposent une synthèse des connaissances actuelles et une réflexion sur la différenciation psychologique des sexes, sur l'orientation sexuelle et sur les notions de sexe et de genre inspirée des textes d'auteures féministes. Il ne s'agit plus de savoir si le cerveau a un sexe, mais si cette question est pertinente et, surtout, pour qui ?"--Page 4 de la couverture.

Jordan-Young has written a stunning book that demolishes most of the science associated with the dominant paradigm of the development of sex and gender identity, behavior, and orientation. The current paradigm, brain organization theory, proposes: "Because of early exposure to different sex hormones, males and females have different brains"; and these hormones also create "gay" and "straight" brains. Jordan-Young interviewed virtually every major researcher in the field and reviewed hundreds of published scientific papers. Her conclusion: "Brain organization theory is little more than an elaboration of longstanding folk tales about antagonistic male and female essences and how they connect to antagonistic male and female natures." She explains, in exquisite detail, the flaws in the underlying science, from experimental designs that make no statistical sense to "conceptually sloppy" definitions of male and female sexuality, contradictory results, and the social construction of normality. Her conclusion that the patterns we see are far more complicated than previously believed and due to a wider range of variables will shake up the research community and alter public perception.

Gender is an essential determinant of health and illness. Gender awareness in doctors contributes to equity and equality in health and aims towards better health for men and women. Nevertheless, gender has largely been ignored in medicine. First, it is stated that medicine was ‘gender blind’ by not considering gender whenever relevant. Secondly, medicine is said to be ‘male biased’ because the largest body of knowledge on health and illness is about men and their health. Thirdly, gender role ideology negatively influences treatment and health outcomes. Finally, gender inequality has been overlooked as a determinant of health and illness. The uptake of gender issues in medical education brings about specific challenges for several reasons. For instance, the political-ideological connotations of gender issues create resistance especially in traditionalists in medical schools. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify which gender issues must be integrated in which domains. Also, some are interdisciplinary issues and as such more difficult to integrate. Finally, schools need assistance with implementation. The integration of psychosocial issues along with biomedical ones in clinical cases, the dissemination of literature and education material, staff education, and efforts towards structural embedding of gender in curricula are determining factors for successful implementation. Gender equity is not a spontaneous process. Medical education provides specific opportunities that may contribute to transformation for medical schools educate future doctors for future patients in future settings. Consequently, future benefits legitimize the integration of gender as a qualitative investment in medical education.

The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, published in 1980, presented a view of the Scientific Revolution that challenged the hegemony of mechanistic science as a marker of progress. It argued that seventeenth-century science could be implicated in the ecological crisis, the domination of nature, and the devaluation of women in the production of scientific knowledge. This essay offers a twenty-five-year retrospective of the book’s contributions to ecofeminism, environmental history, and reassessments of the Scientific Revolution. It also responds to challenges to the argument that Francis Bacon’s rhetoric legitimated the control of nature. Although Bacon did not use terms such as “the torture of nature,” his followers, with some justification, interpreted his rhetoric in that light.

À la lumière des connaissances actuelles en neurosciences, on serait tenté de croire que les vieux préjugés sur les différences biologiques entre les hommes et les femmes ont été balayés. Ce n'est manifestement pas le cas : médias et ouvrages de vulgarisation prétendent que les femmes sont " naturellement " bavardes et incapables de lire une carte routière, tandis que les hommes sont nés bons en maths et compétitifs. Ces discours laissent croire que nos aptitudes, nos émotions, nos valeurs sont tablées dans des structures mentales immuables depuis les temps préhistoriques. Cet ouvrage, qui s'adresse à un large public, replace le débat autour de la différence des sexes sur un terrain scientifique rigoureux, au-delà des idées reçues. L'enjeu est de comprendre le rôle de la biologie, mais aussi l'influence de l'environnement social et culturel dans la construction de nos identités d'hommes et de femmes. Notre destin n'est pas inscrit dans notre cerveau! [Source : d'après la 4e de couv.].

Les femmes n'aiment pas les sciences. Les sciences n'aiment pas les femmes." Cette opinion repose sur un postulat : les femmes seraient tout entières du côté de l'intuition et de la sensibilité, les sciences du côté d'une pure rationalité. Et si ces "évidences" séculaires, confirmées par la longue exclusion des femmes des pratiques scientifiques, n'étaient qu'une histoire d'interdits, d'obstacles, de préjugés et de pouvoir? En effet, l'entrée des femmes dans l'enceinte sacrée des sciences et des technologies et une meilleure connaissance tant des femmes que du travail scientifique remettent aujourd'hui en cause leur prétendue incompatibilité. Réponses à quelques questions, entre autres : quelles sont les conditions d'accès à l'activité et à la création scientifiques, et par quelles procédures les femmes s'en trouvent-elles encore si souvent écartées? Comment cependant les femmes ont-elles contribué et contribuent-elles au développement des sciences? Leur entrée dans ce domaine peut-elle produire des effets sur le fonctionnement du savoir, sur l'éthique ou la politique de la recherche? Bref, la science a-t-elle un sexe?

La littérature psychanalytique s'est développée autour du concept d'un espace pour le désir structuré selon le modèle des rapports du garçon à sa mère. La clinique de la féminité, concurremment avec l'apport historique du féminisme, découvre-t-elle un espace autre pour le désir féminin ? La psychotique pour qui la place du père est restée vide dans la parole de la mère, refuse la Loi comme représentant de l'autorité sociale. Quant à l'hystérique, elle ne se fie pas au Père comme rempart contre le vide qui se profile derrière les Lois et les croyances des hommes. À sa façon, le féminisme reprend, en les projetant sur la scène sociale, ces positions de refus psychotique et de contestation hystérique et requiert de nouvelles formes de vie sociale qui s'articulent à l'espace esthétique dont les femmes ont besoin pour vivre comme citoyennes à part entière.