In an article recently published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, the legal scholar Helen Reece argues that the prevalence and effects of rape myths have been overstated and the designation of certain beliefs and attitudes as myths is simply wrong. Feminist researchers, she argues, are engaged ‘in a process of creating myths about myths’ in a way that serves to close down and limit productive debate in this ‘vexed’ area. In this article we argue that Reece’s analysis is (...) methodologically flawed, crudely reductionist and rhetorically unyielding. We locate Reece’s analysis within the wider theoretical field to show how her failure to engage with feminist literature on rape other than in the narrowest, most exclusionary terms, yields an approach which impedes rather than advances public understanding and panders to a kind of simplistic thinking which cannot begin to grapple with the complexity of the phenomenon that is rape. We conclude by emphasizing the continuing commitment of feminist researchers carefully to theorize and map the fraught field of progressive legal strategizing in order to identify and counter the kinds of risks and shortcomings of political activism with which Reece is rightly concerned. (shrink)

Both gender and the law are significant determinants of health and well-being. Here, we put forward evidence to unpack the relationship between gender and outcomes in health and well-being, and explore how legal determinants interact and intersect with gender norms to amplify or reduce health inequities across populations. The paper explores the similarities between legal and health systems in their response to gender—both systems portray gender neutrality but would be better described as gender-blind. We conclude with a set of recommendations (...) to address both law and gender in implementing the work of the Lancet Commission on the legal determinants of health to improve health outcomes for all, irrespective of gender. (shrink)

This article deals with the concept of vulnerability in social work and how social work students understand the concept of professionalism. The article is based on an empirical study of social worker students and on analysis of the literature used in the education. Theoretically, the article rests upon vulnerability theory as elaborated by Martha Fineman. The analysis suggests that the social worker students share an understanding of the client as vulnerable, and of the social worker as not vulnerable. This entails (...) a view that the social worker is objective and somewhat distanced from his/her clients. The article argues that this understanding runs the risk of producing non-reflexive social work practitioners that are not aware of their own vulnerable position. In conclusion, we state that an understanding of professionalism centred on a shared vulnerability of all beings could bridge the often-used dichotomous understanding of the social worker as either “helper” or “authoritative bureaucrat” and thus lead to a more resilient concept of professionalism. (shrink)