Toward Global Justice: Intersecting Structural Vulnerabilities as a Key Category for Equality Policies in the Age of Bordered Migrations

  • MariaCaterina La BarberaEmail author
Part of the Studies in Global Justice book series (JUST, volume 18)


Equality between women and men is one of the millennium goals. However, policies adopted to pursue such a goal mainly rely on an essentialized “Woman” subject. This chapter discusses the detrimental practical implications of such conceptualizations as a source of global inequality within the current bordered configuration of the planet in the age of migrations. The chapter is articulated along four sections. The first section recalls the relevance of the gendered care structure as an essential category for theories of justice. The second section discusses the concept of group-based gender vulnerability and its limits. The third section engages with the contributions of counterhegemonic feminisms and proposes intersectionality as a key concept to reveal the gendered, racialized and bordered dimensions of social injustices at the global level. The fourth section analyzes a case study. Aiming at bridging theory and praxis, Spanish gender equality policy are analyzed to illustrate the practical implications of the conceptualizations discussed in the previous sections. The chapter shows that Spanish equality policies are exclusionary and reproduce vulnerability for exploited migrant women working in the care sector. Intersectionality is indicated as an indispensable category to make equality policies inclusive and advance towards gender justice at the global level.



This work has been supported by the R&D grant “Human rights and global justice in the context of international migrations” (FFI2013-42521-P) funded by the Spanish Program for the Promotion of Scientific and Technical Research for Excellence. I am grateful to friends and colleagues for their careful reading and constructive suggestions to previous versions of this chapter, in particular to Juan Carlos Velasco, Isabel Turégano, Francisco Blanco Brotons and Jone Martínez Palacios.


  1. Ahedo Gurrutxaga, Igor, et al. 2016. Evaluación cualitativa de la Ley 4/2005 para la Igualdad de Mujeres y Hombres en el País Vasco. Vitoria: Emakunde-Instituto Vasco de la Mujer, Scholar
  2. Ahmed, Leila. 1992. Women and Gender in Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alarcón, Norma. 1990. The Theoretical Subject(S) of This Bridge Called My Back and Anglo-American Feminism. In Making Face, Making Soul: Haciendo Caras, ed. G. Anzaldúa, 356–369. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Mary. 1994. El concepto de vulnerabilidad. Revista Internacional de la Cruz Roja 19: 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arango, Joaquín. 2013. Exceptional in Europe? Spain’s Experience with Immigration and Integration. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Ballester-Pastor, M.A. 2014. Spain. European Gender Equality Law Review 2: 103–105.Google Scholar
  7. Barrère, María Ángeles, and Dolores Morondo. 2011. Subordiscriminación y Discriminación Interseccional. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez 45: 15–42.Google Scholar
  8. Bartlett, K., A. Harris, and D. Rhode. 2002. Gender and law: Theory, doctrine, commentary. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
  9. Bartlett, Katharine, Angela Harris, and Deborah Rhode. 1998. Gender and Law. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
  10. Benería, Lourdes, et al. 2012. Gender and International Migration: Globalization, Development and Governance. Feminist Economics 18 (2): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benston, Margaret. 1969. The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation. Monthly Review 21: 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social. 2013. Court of Justice of the European Union [Case C-5/12].Google Scholar
  13. Bettio, Francesca, et al. 2013. The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Scholar
  14. Bilge, Sirma. 2014. La pertinence de Hall pour l’étude de l’intersectionnalité1. Nouvelles Pratiques Sociales 26 (2): 62–81.Google Scholar
  15. Browne, Irene, and Joya Misra. 2003. The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labour Market. Annual Review of Sociology 29: 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bunch, Charlotte. 1975. Not for Lesbians Only. Quest 2 (2): 50–56.Google Scholar
  17. Bustelo, María. 2014. Three Decades of State Feminism and Gender Equality Policies in Multi-governed Spain. Sex Roles 70 (11): 1–14.Google Scholar
  18. Bustelo, María, and Candice Ortbals. 2007. The Evolution of Spanish State Feminism. In Changing State Feminism, ed. Joyce Outshoorn and Johanna Kantola, 201–223. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Caceido Camacho, Natalia. 2016. Cruzando fronteras. In Igualdad de género y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 557–590. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  21. Carastathis, Anna. 2016. Intersectionality: Origins, Contestations, Horizons. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carby, Hazel. 1996. White Woman Listen! In Black British Cultural Studies, ed. Houston A. Baker et al., 61–86. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Castaño Tierno, Pablo. 2016. Desigualdad de género en la participación política y división sexual del trabajo en España. In Igualdad de género y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 103–129. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  24. CEDRE. 2013. Servicio de asistencia a víctimas de discriminación racial o étnica. Madrid: Memoria Annual.Google Scholar
  25. Chamallas, Martha. 2003. Introduction to Feminist Legal Theory. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
  26. Chapman, A., and B. Carbonetti. 2011. Human Rights Protections for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Groups. Human Rights Quarterly 33 (3): 682–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  28. Ciccia, Rossella, and Mieke Verloo. 2012. Parental Leave Regulations and the Persistence of The Male Breadwinner Model. Journal of European Social Policy 22 (5): 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. CMW, Committee on Migrant Workers. General Comment No 1 on Migrant Domestic Workers (UN Doc. CMW/C/GC/1, 23 February 2011). Last accessed Mar 2018.
  30. Combahee River Collective. [1977] 1982. A Black feminist statement. In All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave, eds. G. Hull, P. Scott, and B. Smith, 13–22. New York: The Feminist Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cook, Rebecca, and Simone Cusack. 2011. Gender Stereotyping. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  32. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1: 139–167.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 1991. Mapping the Margins. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cruells López, Marta, and MariaCaterina La Barbera. 2016. ¿Qué factores favorecen la incorporación de la interseccionalidad en la praxis jurídica? In Igualdad de género y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 529–553. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  35. Davis, Angela. 1981. Women, Race and Class. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  36. De Beauvoir, Simone. 1949. Le deuxième sexe. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  37. De Genova, N. 2002. Migrant “Illegality” and Deportability in Everyday Life. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Delgado Sotillo, I. 2016. uotas e instituciones. In Igualdad de género y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina. La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 131–156. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  39. Diz Otero, Isabel, and Marta Lois González. 2016. El impacto de las cuotas sobre los ejecutivos autonómicos. In Igualdad de género y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 157–182. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  40. ECRI. 2011. Fourth report on Spain. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs: Strasbourg.
  41. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Arlie Hochschild. 2003. Global Woman. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  42. European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). 2017. Gender equality index.
  43. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, FRA. 2014. Violence against women.
  44. Federici, Silvia. 1975. Wages Against Housework. In The Politics of Housework, ed. Ellen Malos, 187–194. New York: The New Clarion Press.Google Scholar
  45. Fineman, M. 2008. The Vulnerable Subject. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20 (1): 8–40.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2010. The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State. Emory Law Journal 60: 251–275.Google Scholar
  47. Finotelli, Claudia, and Irene Ponzo. 2017. Integration in Times of Economic Decline. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.
  48. Finotelli, C., M.C. La Barbera, and G. Echevarría. 2017. Beyond Instrumental Citizenship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.
  49. Fraser, Nancy. 2016. Contradictions of Capital and Care. New Left Review 100: 99–117.Google Scholar
  50. Frye, Marilyn. 1983. The Politics of Reality. Berkeley: The Crossing Press.Google Scholar
  51. Fuss, Diana. 1989. Essentially Speaking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. García Mateos v Spain. 2013. European court of human rights. (Application no. 38285/09).Google Scholar
  53. García Sánchez, Ester. 2016. La génesis de la política del gobierno central contra la violencia de género en España. In Igualdad de género y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 395–424. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  54. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Guerrina, R. 2015. Socio-economic Challenges to Work-Life Balance at Times of Crisis. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 37 (3): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Guillén, Ana M., and Margarita León, eds. 2011. The Spanish Welfare State in European Context. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  57. Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2013. Empirical Intersectionality: A Tale of Two Approaches. UC Irvine Law Review 3: 259–296.Google Scholar
  58. Harding, Sandra. 1995. Just Add Women and Stir? In Missing Links, ed. Gender Working group and UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 295–307. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Scholar
  59. Harris, A. 1990. Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal theory. Stanford Law Review 42: 581–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hegel, Georg W Friedrich [1821] 1991. Elements of the philosophy of right. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  61. Hill Collins, Patricia. 1990. Black Feminist Thought. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 1998. It’s All in the Family. Hypatia 13 (3): 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hobbes, Thomas. [1642] 1998. On the citizen. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  64. Hooks, bell. 1983. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. New York: South End Press.Google Scholar
  65. Hoschschild, Arlie. 1989. The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  66. Hull, Gloria, et al., eds. 1982. All the Women are White, all the Blacks are Men, but Some of us Are Brave. New York: The Feminist Press.Google Scholar
  67. Hunter, Rosemary. 2013. Contesting the Dominant Paradigm. In The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory, ed. M. Davies and V. Munro, 13–30. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  68. ILO, International Labour Organization. 2016. Migrant Domestic Workers. Geneva: International Labour Office, Last accessed in Mar 2018.
  69. INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística/National Statistical Institute. 2010. Encuesta del tiempo,
  70. Jaggar, Alison. 2009. Transnational Cycles of Gendered Vulnerability. Philosophical Topics 37 (2): 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Juárez, Miguel, and Demetrio Casado. 1994. V Informe sociológico sobre la situación social en España. Madrid: Fundación Foessa.Google Scholar
  72. Kantola, Johanna, and Emanuela Lombardo. 2017. Gender and Political Analysis. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Karamessini, M., and J. Rubery, eds. 2014. Women and austerity: The economic crisis and the future for gender equality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. La Barbera, MariaCaterina. 2012. Intersectional-Gender and the Locationality of Women in Transit. In Feminism and Migration, ed. Glenda Bonifacio, 17–31. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. ———. 2015. Identity and Migration. In Identity and Migration in Europe, ed. M.C. La Barbera, 1–13. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. ———. 2017a. Intersectionality and Its Journeys: From Counterhegemonic Feminist Theories to Law of European Multilevel Democracy. Investigaciones feministas 8 (1): 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ———. 2017b. Ban Without Prosecution, Conviction Without Punishment, and Circumcision Without Cutting: A Critical Appraisal of Anti-FGM Laws in Europe. Global Jurist 17 (2).
  78. La Barbera, MariaCaterina, and Emanuela Lombardo. 2017. “The Long and Winding Road”: A Comparative Policy Analysis of Multilevel Judicial Implementation of Work–Life Balance in Spain. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.
  79. Laporta, Elena. 2016. Desde la Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las Formas de Discriminación de la Mujer a la igualdad transformativa en España. In Igualdad y no discriminación en España, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera and Marta Cruells López, 59–79. Madrid: CEPC.Google Scholar
  80. Laulom, S., et al. 2012. How has the crisis affected social legislation in Europe? ETUI Policy Brief.
  81. Lombardo, Emanuela. 2016. Gender Equality Policies in Spain. Brussels: European Parliament, Last accessed in Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  82. Lombardo, Emanuela, and Lise Rolandsen Agustín. 2016. Intersectionality in European Union Policymaking. Politics 36 (4): 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister outsider. Trumansburg: The Crossing Press.Google Scholar
  84. Luna, F. 2009. Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2 (1): 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mani, L. 1987. Contentious Traditions. Cultural Critique 7: 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Matsuda, Mary. 1991. Beside My Sister, Facing the Enemy. Stanford Law Review 43: 1183–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1988. Under Western Eyes. Feminist Review 30: 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. ———. 2003. Under Western Eyes revisited. Signs 28 (2): 499–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Moré, Paloma. 2015. When Your CV is to be a Latina Women, in La Barbera. In Identity and Migration in Europe, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera, 193–208. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  90. Moreno, Luis. 2000. The Spanish Development of the Southern Welfare. In Survival of the European Welfare State, ed. Stein Kuhnle, 146–165. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Murphy, Clíodhna. 2013. The Enduring Vulnerability of Migrant Domestic Workers in Europe. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 62: 599–627. Scholar
  92. Nussbaum, Martha. 1998. Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Obiora, Amede. 1993. Reconsidering Customary Law. Legal Studies Forum 17: 217–252.Google Scholar
  94. Okin, Susan. 1989. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  95. ———. 1999. In Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? ed. Joshua Cohen et al., 7–24. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Olsen, F. 1985. The Myth of State Intervention in the Family. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 18 (4): 835–864.Google Scholar
  97. Parella, Sonia. 2003. Immigrant Women in Paid Domestic Service. Transfer 9: 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Pateman, Carol. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  99. Pérez Orozco, Amaia. 2014. Subversión feminista de la economía. Madrid: Traficantes de sueños.Google Scholar
  100. Peroni, L., and A. Timmer. 2013. Vulnerable Groups. International Journal of Constitutional Law 11 (4): 1056–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Phillips, A. 2010. What’s Wrong with Essentialism? Distinktion 11 (1): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Rich, Adrianne. 1986. Of Woman Born. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  104. Ruhs, Martin, and Bridget Anderson, eds. 2010. Who Needs Migrant Workers? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Sassen, Saskia. 2000. Women’s Burden. Journal of International Affairs 53 (2): 503–524.Google Scholar
  106. Schrover, M., J. Van der Leun, and C. Quispel. 2007. Niches, Labour Market Segregation, Ethnicity and Gender. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33 (4): 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Scott, J.W. 1986. Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review 91: 1053–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Setién, María Luisa, and Elaine Acosta. 2013. Care and Feminized North-South Migration Flows. In The International Handbook on Gender Migration and Transnationalism, ed. Laura Oso and Natalia Ribas-Mateos, 397–419. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Spelman, Elizabeth. 1988. Inessential Woman. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  110. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. Can the Subaltern Speak? In Marxism and the interpretation of Culture, ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Timmer, Alexandra. 2013. A Quiet Revolution. In Vulnerability: Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics, ed. Martha Fineman and Anna Grear, 147–170. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  112. Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral Boundaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  113. Uhde, Z. 2016. Social Bias Within the Institution of Hired Domestic Care. Civitas: Revista de Ciências Sociais 16 (4): 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. UN, Secretary General. 2006. Ending Violence Against Women. Geneva: UN Publication.Google Scholar
  115. Valiente, Celia. 2013. Gender Equality Policymaking in Spain (2008–11). In Politics and Society in Contemporary Spain, ed. Bonnie Field and Alfonso Botti, 179–195. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Verloo, M. 2006. Multiple Inequalities, Intersectionality and the European Union. European Journal of Women’s Studies 13: 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vidal-Coso, Elena, and Pau Miret-Gamundi. 2013. The Internationalization of Domestic Work and Female Immigration in Spain During a Decade of Economic Expansion, 1999–2008. In The International Handbook on Gender Migration and Transnationalism, ed. Laura Oso and Natalia Ribas-Mateos, 337–360. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Vogel, Lise. 1983. Marxism and the Oppression of Women. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Walby, Silvia, et al. 2017. The Concept and Measurement of Violence Against Women and Men. Oxford: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Young, Iris M. 1989. Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship. Ethics 99 (2): 250–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. ———. 2009. Structural Injustice and the Politics of Difference. In Beyond Intersectionality. Law, Power and the Politics of Location, ed. Emily Grabham et al., 273–299. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  122. Young, Margot. 2010. Unequal to the Task: “Kapp”ing the Substantive Potential of Section 15. Supreme Court Law Review 50: 183–219.Google Scholar
  123. Yuval Davis, Nira. 1990. Gender and Nation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesNebrija UniversityMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations