Feminist Interventions:
development of geography research (Gar-
Southern Europe/
Mediterranean
MIREIA BAYLINA
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
In 2016, the study of feminist geography is
consolidated at the international level, with
differences in the rhythms of the process
in different countries (Huang 2015) and an
Anglo-American dominance in theoreti-
cal approaches, in the issues analyzed, and
the methodologies used (Garcia Ramon,
Simonsen, and Vaiou 2007). The causes of the
disparities between regions are multiple and
often derived from a sum of circumstances,
in which the role of academic institutions,
governments, neoliberal policies, cultures,
and connections between people and places
take on crucial importance. The role of the
International Geographical Union (IGU)
Commission on Gender and Geography
since its creation in Sydney in 1988, and
the importance of previous meetings of the
founders, Janice Monk, Janet Momsen, and
Maria Dolors Garcia Ramon, in international
forums, have been crucial to the development
of gender perspectives in geography and the
inclusion of “the other” in the research in this
field.
In Southern Europe, particularly in Spain,
Portugal, Italy, and Greece, the feminist
perspective in geography appeared in the
early 1980s as a result of the rise of the fem-
inist movement and contact between the
researchers and the production of knowl-
edge in Europe and the United States. In
1982, Aurora Garcia Ballesteros from the
Complutense University of Madrid published
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies. Edited by Anthony Orum.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0098
an article on the role of women in the
cia Ballesteros 1982), which was followed
by publications on the analysis of gender
in geography from Ana Sabaté (1984) and
Maria Dolors Garcia Ramon (1985) at the
time when the IGU Commission was being
brought to life.
The Erasmus Thematic Network for Gen-
der and Geography was another important
connection that enhanced teaching on fem-
inist geography. Between 1990 and 1998,
a consortium of six European universities
offered intensive short courses in gender
and geography for advanced undergraduate
and graduate students from the University
of Amsterdam, Autonomous University of
Barcelona, University of Durham, National
Technical University of Athens, University of
Sheffield, and University of Roskilde, repre-
senting five countries and six languages. The
network became a meeting point and a breed-
ing ground for new theoretical insights and
empirical knowledge in gender geography
(Monk and Garcia Ramon 2013). The third
intensive course, held at the Autonomous
University of Barcelona in 1993, incorporated
a specific geographic framework, Southern
Europe, into the topic that connected the
sessions: work, occupation, and daily life.
The idea was to gather ideas and various per-
spectives on living conditions of women and
men in Southern Europe. It became apparent
that one of the threads linking research in
Southern Europe was the subject of work
in the context of women’s everyday life, and
the epistemological frame of reference was
the radical perspective (Vinay 1985; Cruz
Villalón 1987; Garcia Ramon 1989; Sabaté
1989; Hadjimichalis and Vaiou 1990; André
1991).
2 F E MI N I ST I N T E RVE N T ION S : S OU THERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
It soon became clear that the feminist
perspective involved a substantial conceptual
and methodological break with traditional
geography. For example, the deconstruction
of the concept of “work” found that analyzing
the work done by women in different contexts
requires a working definition that includes
all types of work, carried out in public and
private spheres and the formal and informal
economies. This approach was quite basic to
the study of the work and daily life of women
in Southern Europe. Moreover, the diffi-
culty in finding statistical data about women
and their activities led to the development
of a qualitative methodology, a previ-
ously marginalized approach in geographic
research. These outcomes, the growing links
between feminist geographers from different
countries and their regular contact at British,
American, and international conferences,
have propelled the development of feminist
geography in Southern Europe.
SPAIN
The first special issue on gender and geog-
raphy in a geography journal was published
in Spain, in the Catalan journal Documents
d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, in 1989, and featured
both national and international authors. This
was a starting point that raised the visibility
of gender as having entered fully into the
field of geographical research. The 1990s
saw considerable development of this area
of study, although it was very uneven from a
geographical point of view. The research was
concentrated in the groups that initiated the
gender studies in geography (Autonomous
University of Barcelona and Complutense
University of Madrid); notably, Catalonia
stands out as the major source of authorship
and dissemination in research journals (San-
tos 2016). The main topics of study were the
labor market, rural areas, and the theoretical
and methodological aspects of gender (Garcia
Ramon et al. 1995; Sabaté, Rodríguez, and
Díaz 1995; Baylina and Garcia Ramon 1998).
The gender perspective permeated studies
on local development (Garcia Ramon and
Baylina 2000; Cànoves et al. 2004; Pallarès,
Tulla, and Pallarès-Blanch 2004), focusing
on economic aspects, local governance, and
environmental sustainability (Canosa et al.
2000). Studies in urban areas began with
women’s mobility and time management by
women in cities (Prats, Garcia Ramon, and
Cànoves 1995); the impact of immigration
was also under study (Domingo and Viruela
1999), along with the participation of women
in environmental activism (Bru 1997).
A more recent avenue of research involves
the analysis of urban planning actions
undertaken in several Catalan cities (Gar-
cia Ramon, Prats, and Ortiz 2014). These
studies focus on the use and appropriation
of urban public spaces by diverse popula-
tions, taking into account gender, age, and
ethnicity, and are framed in a context of
international proliferation of studies in fem-
inist geography. The cultural turn in social
sciences has contributed to this increased
scientific production and to diversifying
the topics of analysis (Garcia Ramon 2003).
Researchers focus on gender as a set of mean-
ings and social practices that are culturally
constructed; the meanings emanate from an
appreciation of the diversity of experiences of
gender, as well as age, ethnicity, social class,
and sexuality. In Spain, research is under way
on the geographies of children and youth
from a gender and intersectional approach,
contributing to international territorial cov-
erage of these studies and to the inclusion
of gender in these geographies (Baylina,
Ortiz, and Prats 2006; Rodó-de-Zarate 2014).
This phase also developed the geography of
sexuality, and in particular criticism of the
heteronormativity of society and of spaces.
In Spain, very little work has been done in
 FE MI N I ST I N T ERVENT ION S: SOUT HERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
this area. The first studies were related to
the contribution of the gay population to
the processes of gentrification (Santos 1998;
Fernandez Salinas 2007), and the most recent
have linked youth, sexuality, and urban public
spaces (Rodó-de-Zarate 2015).
PORTUGAL
In Portugal, the work of Isabel André at the
University of Lisbon on the gender perspec-
tive in geography, work, and mobility was the
beginning of feminist geography in that coun-
try (André 1990, 1991). However, there was
no continuation of these studies until well into
the twenty-first century, when this perspec-
tive began to be developed from an applied
perspective, relating gender to dimensions
such as the environment, urban planning,
transport ,and tourism (Queirós 2010).
Again, international connections were impor-
tant to raising gender as a challenge to Por-
tuguese geographic practice on issues of social
and urban planning (Silva and Vieira 2012).
The influence of so-called third generation
feminisms and queer theory was funda-
mental to the development of Portuguese
feminist geography, and in particular the
geography of sexuality, beginning in 2010
(Rodrigues 2014). Criticism of binary oppo-
sites – between men and women, gender and
sexuality, male and female, heterosexual and
homosexual – is the starting point to ending
a dichotomous vision that comes from a
male epistemology, shaped and reproduced
by patriarchal and heteronormative power
relationships. In this area, researchers include
those whose work focuses on LGBT (lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender) (in)visibilities
and inequalities, on sexual identities and real
or virtual spaces, or queer spatialities in daily
life (Ferreira and Salvador 2014; Vieira 2010).
This process has led to the recent creation
of an Ibero-Latin American network for the
3
study of geography, gender, and sexuality
(in Spanish, Red de Estudios de Geografía,
Género y Sexualidad Ibero Latinoamericana,
REGGSILA) which aims to give visibility
to the knowledge produced in these diverse
geographical and cultural contexts. Within
REGGSILA, the Portuguese-language group
has launched international conferences
such as the Latin American Seminar on
Geography, Gender, and Sexuality, one in
Brazil (2012) and one in Portugal (2014).
ITALY
Feminist geography is not particularly visible
in Italy, perhaps because geography itself is
not in the spotlight, and gender and space
tend to be studied in a mix of social sci-
ences. The first studies were published in
the mid-1980s (Vinay 1985) and the first
Italian monograph on the geography of
women dates from 1990. Almost 20 years
passed before another “geography of gender”
appeared (Borghi and Rondinone 2009). In
1993, Maria Luisa Gentileschi and Gisela
Cortesi organized a meeting of the Com-
mission on Population Geography of the
IGU in Cagliari (Sardinia) that addressed
the role of women in territorial organiza-
tions (Cortesi and Gentileschi 1996). Again
working with the IGU, the Italian Geo-
graphic Society organized a seminar titled
“Gendered Cities” in 2003, which was a step
forward in promoting feminist geography
in Italy (Cortesi, Cristaldi, and Droogleever
2006) due to the maturation of the feminist
approach in geography and contributions
of postmodernism, postcolonialism, and
the cultural turn in social sciences. Recent
research topics of Italian geographers include
the labor market, migration, travel geogra-
phy, and urban space (dell’Agnese, Minca,
and Schmidt di Friedberg 2016; Vachelli
2011).
4 F E MI N I ST I N T E RVE N T ION S : S OU THERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
Despite being “a sexist academic field in
which (heterosexual) men are the majority”
(Di Feliciantonio 2013, 175), a group on geog-
raphy and gender was created in 2005 within
the Association of Italian Geographers,
increasing the visibility of the topic in Italian
geography. The creation of this group can
be explained by the legitimacy conferred by
international connections and the status of its
leaders. In 2009, an international conference
on “The Space of Difference” was organized
and the results were published in the Bul-
letin of the Italian Geographical Society. The
organizers and editors of the proceedings,
Rachele Borghi and Marcella Schmidt di
Friedberg, sought to disseminate studies on
the relationship between geography and dif-
ferent sexual subjectivities within a strongly
heteronormative context such as the Italian
academy (Di Feliciantonio 2013), although
the authorship of the articles was mainly
non-Italian. Internationalization is moving
forward and is pursued as new members
enter the working group.
GREECE
In Greece, research on feminist geography
began under the leadership of a profes-
sor of urban planning, Dina Vaiou, in a
school of architecture, and emerged from the
momentum of radical political debate and
involvement in the 1980s. The entry of Greece
into the European Economic Community in
1981 was crucial to the incorporation of
gender equality policies into the country’s
institutional agenda and to the initiation
and development of women’s and gender
studies at universities, despite resistance and
low, erratic funding levels (Pavlidou 2006;
Lada 2001). Some of the initial studies dealt
with the relationship between gender and
the built environment, especially around
the limits between public and private space
(Tentocali and Howell 1989; Lada 1995).
Again, contacts with feminist research groups
in other countries, including the Women and
Geography Study Group of the Institute of
British Geographers, were instrumental in the
incorporation of feminist theory into urban
planning studies in Greece (Vaiou 2008).
Contacts with the Erasmus network consoli-
dated an alliance with European researchers
that benefited the gender and space studies at
the National Technical University of Athens.
The researchers in this group share a clear
interest in everyday life as a starting point
for analyzing urban life and development
and exploring unquestioned aspects of daily
social life (Vaiou 1992, 2008; Lykogianni
2002; Vaiou and Lykogianni 2006). Thus,
many economic processes not previously
studied that shape the interests and everyday
problems of the population are discussed.
The researchers focus much of their work
on the labor market and the associated
informalization processes that characterize
access to financial resources for many women
(Vaiou and Hadjimichalis 2003). Analysis
of women in Athens who work from home,
for example, has led to a rich new source
of knowledge about work and gender rela-
tions in the international feminist geography,
impossible to detect from Western “local”
meanings and knowledges. The author points
out that in the last decade a particular sen-
sitivity to everyday concerns has led women
researchers to focus on the impact of massive
immigration, and especially women, to major
Southern European cities, not to mention
other more general issues such as the impact
of gender in urban planning. The recent and
long economic crisis has had a brutal impact
on society and space. The researchers, fully
involved in denouncing social inequalities,
shed light on the ordinary sociospatial prac-
tices of the population that illustrates the
precariousness, poverty, and marginalization
of specific people and specific places (Micha
 FE MI N I ST I N T ERVENT ION S: SOUT HERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
and Vaiou 2015). At the same time, the urban
space has also been the stage for studies on
gender and sexuality (Lada 2004; Marnelakis
2009). Feminist geography in Greece has
relatively few researchers but has achieved
strong national and international impact.
In general, researchers in Southern Europe
are conscious of occupying a peripheral
position in the production of knowledge
in general and in feminist geography in
particular. Different languages and ways
of understanding reality involve constant,
difficult translation, and as Vaiou (2008)
noted, this is disempowering. From their
position, they have struggled to create a
space for feminism in their context, with little
support and great academic resistance. They
have achieved important goals: making gen-
der visible in academia through numerous
activities, courses, conferences, publications,
and collection development in libraries; and
creating masters and doctoral programs that
are benchmarks for students and teachers. As
Vaiou points out, thinking about everyday life
mobilizes insecurities that many are not pre-
pared to face (Vaiou 2008), and moving daily
between the mainstream and the margins is
an uncomfortable position that cannot be
sustained unless one has an open and flexible
mind, is ready to observe new phenomena
and adopt new perspectives, and also (it
must be said) has a relatively stable position
within the academy. This may explain, in part,
the shortage of researchers and universities
participating in this line of research.
The patriarchal structure of universities
and departments conditions the development
of the gender perspective in the academic
setting, as reflected in the curriculum, career
paths of teachers, or the obsession with the
social utility of geography, which assigns
excessive value to technological tools over
theoretical debate and socioterritorial prob-
lems. In the sociopolitical context, gender
is considered of little relevance and a topic
5
that is outside the dominant political dis-
course. In the economic area, a deep crisis
and neoliberal policies have exacerbated the
problem. Social cuts negatively affect employ-
ment for women, young people are less likely
to occupy positions at the university, and,
in terms of competitiveness, gender is not
considered relevant. Nonetheless, previous
decades were no better and the outcomes
have been generally positive. International-
ization has contributed to the legitimacy of
gender and geography studies in academia
in many countries and has been like fresh
air to researchers. This must continue to
grow internally and to enrich and positively
challenge the hegemonic knowledge of these
studies with other voices and experiences.
SEE ALSO: Feminist Interventions:
Anglophone World; Feminist Interventions:
Central and Eastern Europe; Feminist
Interventions: French Connections; Feminist
Interventions: Voices from the South;
Gendered Aspects of the Everyday; Gendered
Space; Sexualities
REFERENCES
André, I. 1990. “O género em geografia: Intro-
duçao de um novo tema” [“Gender in Geogra-
phy: Introducing a New Theme”]. Finisterra, 50:
331–348.
André, I. 1991. “Women’s Employment in Portu-
gal.” Iberian Studies, 20: 1–2.
Baylina, M., and M. D. Garcia Ramon. 1998.
“Homeworking in Rural Spain. A Gender
Approach.” European Urban and Regional
Studies, 5(1): 55–64.
Baylina, M., Ortiz, A. and M. Prats. 2006. “Chil-
dren and Playgrounds in Mediterranean Cities.”
Children’s Geographies, 4(2): 173–183.
Borghi, R., and A. Rondinone. 2009. Geografia di
genere [Geography of Gender]. Milan: Unicopli.
Bru, J. 1997. Medioambiente, poder y espectáculo
[Environment, Power and Spectacle]. Barcelona:
Icària.
Canosa, E. et al. 2000. La Mujer y la conser-
vación de la naturaleza en España: su papel en la
gestión de los recursos naturales y en el desarrollo
6 F E MI N I ST I N T E RVE N T ION S : S OU THERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
rural sostenible [Women and the Conservation of
Nature in Spain: Their Role in the Management
of Natural Resources and in Sustainable Rural
Development]. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer.
Canoves, G., M. Villarino, G. Priestley, and A.
Blanco. 2004. “Rural Tourism in Spain: An
Analysis of Recent Evolution.” Geoforum, 35:
755–769.
Cortesi, G., F. Cristaldi, and J. Droogleever. 2006.
La città delle donne: Un approccio di genere alla
geografia urbana [The City of Women: A Gen-
der Approach to Urban Geography]. Bologna:
Pàtron.
Cortesi, G., and M. Gentileschi. 1996. Donne e
geografia: Studi, ricerche, problema [Women and
Geography: Studies, Research, Problem]. Milan:
Franco Angeli.
Cruz Villalón, J. 1987. “Political and Economic
Change in Spanish Agriculture.” Antipode,
19(2): 119–133.
dell’Agnese, E., C. Minca, and M. Schmidt di Fried-
berg. 2016. “Italian Critical Geography.” In Plac-
ing Critical Geography: International Histories of
Critical Geographies, edited by U. Best and L.
Berg. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Di Feliciantonio, C. 2013. “Se necesita encontrar
las palabras para decirlo: La marginalización
de la geografía de género y de la sexualidad
en Italia: Entrevista con Rachele Borghi” [“You
Need to Find the Words to Say It: The Marginal-
ization of Gender Geography and Sexuality in
Italy: Interview with Rachele Borghi”]. Revista
Latino-americana de Geografia e Gênero, 4(2):
173–178.
Domingo, C., and R. Viruela. 1999. “Mujeres
inmigradas en Valencia” [“Immigrant Women
in Valencia”]. Cuadernos de Geografía, 65–66:
165–191.
Fernandez Salinas, V. 2007. “Visibilidad y escena
gay masculina en la ciudad española” [“Visibility
and the Male Gay Scene in the Spanish City”].
Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 49: 139–160.
Ferreira, E., and R. Salvador. 2014. “Lesbian
Collaborative Web Mapping: Disrupting Het-
eronormativity in Portugal.” Gender, Place and
Culture, 22(7): 954–970.
Garcia Ballesteros, A. 1982. “El papel de la mujer
en el desarrollo de la geografía” [“The Role of
Women in the Development of Geography”].
In Liberación y utopia [Liberation and Utopia],
edited by M. A. Durán, 119–141. Madrid: Akal.
Garcia Ramon, M. D. 1985. “El análisis de género
y la geografía: reflexiones en torno a un
libro reciente” [“The Analysis of Gender and
Geography: Reflections on a Recent Book”].
Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 6: 133–143.
Garcia Ramon, M. D. 1989. “Actividad agraria y
género en España: una aproximación a partir
del censo agrario de 1982” [“Agricultural Activ-
ity and Gender in Spain: An Approximation
from the Agrarian Census of 1982”]. Documents
d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 14: 89–114.
Garcia Ramon, M. D. 2003. “Gender and the Colo-
nial Encounter: European Women’s Travel Nar-
ratives from the Arab World.” Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 21: 653–672.
Garcia Ramon, M. D. and M. Baylina, eds. 2000. El
nuevo papel de las mujeres en el desarrollo rural
[The New Role of Women in Rural Development].
Vilassar de Mar: Oikos-Tau.
Garcia Ramon, M. D., J. Cruz, I. Salamaña, and M.
Villarino. 1995. Mujer y agricultura en España:
Género, trabajo y contexto regional [Women and
Agriculture in Spain: Gender, Work and Regional
Context]. Vilassar de Mar: Oikos-Tau.
Garcia Ramon, M. D., M. Prats, and A. Ortiz. 2014.
Espacios públicos, género y diversidad: Geografías
para unas ciudades inclusivas [Public Spaces,
Gender and Diversity: Geographies for Inclusive
Cities]. Barcelona: Icària.
Garcia Ramon, M. D., K. Simonsen, and D. Vaiou.
2007. “Does Anglophone Hegemony Permeate
Gender, Place and Culture?” Gender, Place and
Culture, 13(1): 1–5.
Hadjimichalis, C., and D. Vaiou. 1990. “Whose
Flexibility? The Politics of Informalisation
in Southern Europe.” Capital and Class, 42:
79–106.
Huang, S. 2015. “Introduction from the Commis-
sion Chair.” International Geographical Union
Commission on Gender and Geography Newslet-
ter, 55.
Lada, S. 1995. “Reflections on the Limits between
Public and Private Space.” In Gender and the
Built Environment: Emancipation in Planning,
Housing and Mobility in Europe, edited by L.
Ottes et al., 46–51. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Lada, S. 2001. “Women’s Studies in Greece.” In
Women’s Studies: From Institutional Innovation
to New Job Qualifications, edited by N. Lykke, C.
Michel, and M. Puig de la Bellacasa, 191–196.
Denmark: University of Southern Denmark.
 FE MI N I ST I N T ERVENT ION S: SOUT HERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
Lada, S. 2004. “Topoi and Top(i)ography of Desire:
Gender and Sexuality(ies) in Urban Space.” In
Studi di Genere e Memoria Culturale/Women
and Cultural Memory, edited by V. Fortunati
et al., 73–87. Bologna: Clueb.
Lykogianni, R. 2002. “Neighbourly Women in
Athens.” Women and Environments, 56/57:
31–33.
Marnelakis, G. 2009. “Crossing Methods, Cross-
ing Epistemologies: How to Make the Research
of the City Perfectly Queer.” In Teaching Gen-
der, Diversity and Urban Space: An Intersectional
Approach between Gender Studies and Spatial
Disciplines, edited by S. Lada, 33–52. Utrecht:
ATHENA/University of Utrecht.
Micha, I., and Vaiou, D. 2015. “Entre attachements
ordinaires et constructions mediatiques dans les
quartiers du centre d’Athenes” [“Between Ordi-
nary Attachments and Mediatic Constructions
in the Central Districts of Athens”]. Parcours
Anthropologiques, 10: 166–185.
Monk, J., and M. D. Garcia Ramon. 2013. “Bridges
and Barriers: Some Cartographies of Inter-
national Practice in Gender Studies.” QJB.
Querelles, 16. Accessed January 17, 2018, at
www.querelles.de/index.php/qjb/article/view/
14.
Pallarès, M., A. F. Tulla, and M. Pallarès-Blanch.
2004. Capital social i treballs de les dones als
Pirineus: El cas de l’Alt Pirineu [Social Capital
and Work of Women in the Pyrenees: The Case
of the Alt Pirineu]. Barcelona: Institut Català de
les Dones.
Pavlidou, S. 2006. “Women’s Studies in Greece: An
Update.” In The Making of European Women’s
Studies, edited by R. Braidotti and W. Berteke,
vol. 7, 178–185. Utrecht: ATHENA/University
of Utrecht.
Prats, M., M. D. Garcia Ramon, and G. Cànoves.
1995. Las mujeres y el uso del tiempo [Women
and the Use of Time]. Madrid: Instituto de la
Mujer.
Queirós, M. 2010. “Rumo à construçâo de uma
agenda de investigaçao “Género e Ambien-
te” em Portugal” [“Toward the Construction
of a Research Agenda ‘Gender and Environ-
ment’ in Portugal”]. Revista Latino-americana de
Geografia e Gênero, 1(1): 106–115.
Rodó-de-Zárate, M. 2014. “Developing Geogra-
phies of Intersectionality with Relief Maps:
Reflections from Youth Research in Manresa,
7
Catalonia.” Gender, Place and Culture, 21(8):
925–944.
Rodó-de-Zárate, M. 2015. “Young Lesbians Nego-
tiating Public Space in Manresa: An Inter-
sectional Approach through Places.” Children’s
Geographies, 13(4): 413–434.
Rodrigues, N. 2014. “À procura das geografías de
género e sexualidade em Portugal” [“Looking for
the Geographies of Gender and Sexuality in Por-
tugal”]. Revista Latino-americana de Geografia e
Gênero, 5(2): 42–58.
Sabaté, A. 1984. “Mujer, geografía y feminismo”
[“Woman, Geography and Feminism”]. Anales
de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense, 4:
37–53.
Sabaté, A. 1989. “Geografía y género en el medio
rural: algunas líneas de análisis” [“Geography
and Gender in Rural Areas: Some Lines of
Analysis”]. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 14:
131–147.
Sabaté, A., J. M. Rodríguez, and M. A. Díaz. 1995.
Mujeres, espacio y sociedad: Hacia una geografía
del género [Women, Space and Society: Toward a
Geography of Gender]. Madrid: Síntesis.
Santos, X. 1998. “O espacio da homosexualidade en
Galicia” [“The Space of Homosexuality in Gali-
cia”]. Fluxos, 1: 23–34.
Santos, X. 2016. “Los estudios de género y sex-
ualidad en España a partir de las revistas de
geografía (1990–2014)” [“Studies of Gender
and Sexuality in Spain from the Journals of
Geography (1990–2014)”]. Documents d’Anàlisi
Geogràfica, 62(2): 427–448.
Silva, J., and P. Vieira. 2012. “Gênero e terri-
torio na geografia portuguesa: Entrevista com
Margarida Queirós” [“Gender and Territory in
Portuguese Geography: Interview with Mar-
garida Queirós”]. Revista Latino-americana de
Geografia e Gênero, 3(1): 185–189.
Tentocali, V., and S. Howell. 1989. “Domestic Pri-
vacy: Gender, Culture and Development Issues.”
In Housing, Culture and Design: A Comparative
Perspective, edited by S. Low and E. Chambers,
281–297. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-
nia Press.
Vachelli, E. 2011. “Geographies of Subjectivity:
Locating Feminist Political Subjects in Milan.”
Gender, Place and Culture, 18(6): 768–785.
Vaiou, D. 1992. “Gender Divisions in Urban Space:
Beyond the Rigidity of Dualist Classifications.”
Antipode, 24(4): 247–262.
8 F E MI N I ST I N T E RVE N T ION S : S OU THERN EUROP E/M EDI T ERRANEA N
Vaiou, D. 2008. “Space for Feminism in Greek
Academe?” In Feminisms in Geography, edited
by P. Moss and K. Falconer Al-Hindi, 207–214.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Vaiou, D., and C. Hadjimichalis. 2003. With the
Sewing Machine in the Kitchen and the Poles in
the Fields: Cities, Regions and Informal Work.
Athens: Exandas.
Vaiou, D., and R. Lykogianni. 2006. “Women,
Neighbourhoods and Everyday Life.” Urban
Studies, 43(4): 731–743.
Vieira, P. 2010. “Aeminiumqueer, a cidade armario:
Quotidianos lésbicos e gays em espaço urbano”
[“Aeminiumqueer, the City Wardrobe: Lesbian
and Gay Daily Life in Urban Space”]. Revista
Latino-americana de Geografia e Gênero, 1(1):
5–13.
Vinay, P. 1985. “Family Life Cycle and the Informal
Economy in Central Italy.” International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 9(1).
FURTHER READING
Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica. 2007. “Una
mirada internacional a la Geografia i el Gènere”
[“An International Look at Geography and
Gender “]. Vol. 49.
Garcia-Ramon, M. D., and J. Monk, eds 2007.
“Feminist Geographies around the World.” Bel-
geo, 3.
Ibarra-García, M. V., and I. Escamilla-Herrera, eds.
2016. Geografías feministas de diverses latitudes:
Orígenes, desarrollo y temáticas contemporáneas
[Feminist Geographies of Different Latitudes: Ori-
gins, Development and Contemporary Themes].
Mexico DF: UNAM, Instituto de Geografía.
Moss, P., and K. Falconer Al-Hindi, eds. 2008.
Feminisms in Geography: Rethinking Space, Place
and Knowledges. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.