Polish Mother and (Not) Her Children: Intersectional State-Violence against Minors in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I am deeply grateful to the author for undertaking this very important and timely work, and especially at a time when right-wing, nationalist, heteronormative, and white supremacist movements have taken a stronghold in Poland. The article does something unique by focusing on right-wing female politicians, and their discourses of motherhood, children, and families. It was interesting to read the 'child in danger' discourse and how foetus has been turned into an 'unborn child'. This article has a great deal of potential and it can inform domestic, European and the wider progressive transnational feminist, immigrant and LGBTQ+ rights intersectional/movements. 

In my opinion, the article needs further and deeper theoretical engagement with reproductive justice and racist-gender state violence literature (for instance, see Salina Abji, Monish Bhatia, Gwyneth Lonergan, Loretta Ross, Sophia Siddiqui). The theoretical framework needs to be marked clearly, so reader can understand the distinct contribution of the article. The word 'intersectional' is mentioned in the article title, but there is no mention at all of intersectionality literature or black feminist or women of colour feminist work . Also, bear in mind that some of what you have mentioned is similar to what is happening in th UK and US, so it will be great if you could draw that literature to strengthen the article and inform the wider debates. 

My second point is more related to the structure. The section 3.1 was very lengthy and I felt that (i) either can be broken down into sub-sections or (ii) there needs to be a table introduced to guide the reader. Similarly, the review of the literature needs to come much earlier on and around/after the introduction. 

The above revisions are going to significantly strengthen this timely, necessary and urgent article, and also inform the wider/transnational movements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs another round of proof-reading. But article is written well overall.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review. I very much appreciate your kind words and value the constructive feedback provided.

I tried my best to address your suggestions on how to improve the article, i.e.

• I added a subsection with literature review and theoretical framework
• I included literature on reproductive justice and racist-gender state violence
• I edited the article to clarify the intersectional character of my analysis
• I restructured the 3.1. section and broke it down into sub-sections
• I proofread the article

Should you have any further comments, I look forward to receiving them.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents very interesting material through a discourse analysis. Unfortunatley, instead of an analysis, the discussion and results follow the line of a partisan approach which is not scientific but political. I have strong ethical concerns with such an approach. In addition, the details of the comparision are not convincing (Belarus` abuse of migrants in its hybride war with abortion etc)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for reading my article.

I tried my best to improve it based on all the reviews received, i.e.

• I added a subsection with literature review and theoretical framework
• I included literature on reproductive justice and racist-gender state violence
• I updated section on methods
• I tried to give more balance to anti-LGBT and anti-immigration discourses
• I edited the article to clarify the normative positionings and political stakes
• I restructured the 3.1. section and broke it down into sub-sections
• I revised the words used and proofread the article

Should you be interested in re-reading my work, I would appreciate any constructive feedback you might have for me.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper that makes an important contribution to the literature. It neverthless needs some more work, particularly to:

1.       Identify the scholarship it is speaking to more clearly and situate its contribution in relation to this scholarship.

2.       Some more clarification is needed for methods – how did you choose the sample you were to work with? Why these 50 specifically? How did you develop the codes? Examples of codes?

3.       Give more balance throughout to anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigration, given that this is how it is framed (or change the framing to focus on one).

4.       Clarify its political stakes and normative positionings more clearly – there are times when I was somewhat confused and was not sure if it was condoning some of the xenophobic and/or racist sentiments being expressed given the expressions and word choice used.

5.       Relatedly, revise word choice and edit for language structure and expressions. Many words used need to be problematised, it is not clear when something is being used as an analytical term, a description, or a claim by right-wing politicians. Putting them in quotation marks might be enough for this often.

6.       Clarify the stakes of the paper’s argument more clearly – it’s a good argument, but the ‘so what’ needs some more explicit articulation. Why is this important and what does it challenge? What should we do now that we’ve acknowledged it?

More specifically, as examples of the above:

Moreover, I disagree with Agnieszka Graff [14] that the figure of a “Polish 71 mother” has no emancipatory potential and claim that women who act as defenders of a 72 “child in danger” transgress the stereotypical femininity and exercise their agency in new 73 political contexts.

I do not understand how this is a disagreement – what is emancipatory here? Agentive, yes, but agentive toward oppression not emancipation…

They are wives, mothers, emancipated women, resourceful party representatives, and 116 charismatic speakers.

What does emancipated women mean? Is this not a category to be problematised?

In the Polish case, matters related to immigration has always been multifaceted 540 because refugees and immigrants who arrive in Poland come primarily from the East, not from the Middle East or Africa.

Needs clarification. What are the implications and stakes of this? What does it mean for them to come from the ‘East’? What ‘East’ are we talking about here?

The way non-European is used needs clarification. How are Ukrainians constructed as Europeans while Belarussians are not? Where does this come from? This is not a self-evident category

…often with no intention to have offspring.(bottom of page 11).

This is not a descriptive statement is it? This is an assumed/imagined claim – that needs to be clarified or supported.

‘Meaningful contribution’ in the abstract and other parts of the paper can be replaced with ‘significant contribution’ as meaningful often implies a valorised contribution.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is generally good, but there is either a significant issue of word choice and expressions as noted above, or the paper is condoning racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, and homophobic positions...I am guessing this is an English language issue here.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review. I very much appreciate the constructive feedback provided. I tried my best to address your suggestions on how to improve the article and introduced the following changes:

• added a subsection with literature review and theoretical framework
• included literature on reproductive justice and racist-gender state violence
• updated section on methods
• tried to give more balance to anti-LGBT and anti-immigration discourses
• edited the article to clarify the normative positionings and political stakes
• restructured the 3.1. section and broke it down into sub-sections
• revised the words used and proofread the article

Should you have any further comments, I look forward to receiving them.

Best regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article impresses with its methodological rigor, tackling a significant subject in a fresh and unconventional way. The logical and easily digestible structure enhances the overall readability. A notable highlight is the meticulous analysis of parliamentary session protocols, underpinned by solid source material. This not only bolsters the article's credibility but also offers a thorough exploration of the topic. In essence, the article shines through its well-crafted methodology, innovative perspective, and adept utilization of primary sources, making it a noteworthy addition to the discourse.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for reading my article. I very much appreciate your kind words and value the feedback provided. Please be informed that based on all the reviews received, I introduced the following changes:

• added a subsection with literature review and theoretical framework
• included literature on reproductive justice and racist-gender state violence
• updated section on methods
• tried to give more balance to anti-LGBT and anti-immigration discourses
• edited the article to clarify the normative positionings and political stakes
• restructured the 3.1. section and broke it down into sub-sections
• revised the words used and proofread the article

Should you be interested in re-reading my work, I would appreciate any comments and suggestions on how to improve it.

Best regards,

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article. It combines important theoretical considerations with analysis of rich empirical material. It makes an important contribution to the study of gender and nationalism - in Poland but also more generally: the rhetoric of motherhood/endangered child is effective in legitimizing exclusionary policies. It is clear that these women use gender strategically, you do a great job showing their various strategies.

 I would recommend the following 2 changes:

Shift in emphasis: You keep saying that these strategies are use to build a 'positive self image' - this is repeated several times, but it is really a truism. Far more interesting is the part of your argument where you show that the position of "POLISH MOTHER" is re-politicized, and in fact weaponized in these debates.  This is your core claim and it need sto be given more emphasis. Much of your material shows HOW this weaponization is achieved and to what ends.

structural change: a large section of the article lines 598-659 seems to be providing context/background information. It seems to me this should be put EARLIER in the text. Where it is now it distracts from your excellent analysis of the data. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are minor problems with English - mostly in use of articles (the instead of a). Line 59 : awkward phrasing: on the one hand side (should be: On the One hand).

Mistake in name: should be FLOYA Anthias (not Fiona)  (line118)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review. I very much appreciate your kind words and value the constructive feedback provided. Based on the reviews received, I tried my best to address all the suggestions on how to improve the article and introduced the following changes:

• included an additional reference (Bhatia, 2023) in the last paragraph of the theoretical framework section
• shifted the emphasis from building a positive self-image into the ways motherhood is weaponized and re-politicized
• introduced a structural change to provide a nuanced context before the textual analysis, i.e. I put the discourse practice section before the text section
• revised the words used, corrected typos and proofread the article

Should you have any further comments, I look forward to receiving them.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the author on undertaking revisions. As a result, the article now appears tight and crisp. The theoretical section, in my opinion, needs further developing. Alongside Siddiqui's work, I will encourage the author to also cite Bhatia, M. (2023). Reproductive injustice in Britain: punishing illegalized migrant women from the Global South and separating families. Identities, 30(4), 471-489.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is necessary

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review. I very much appreciate your kind words and value the constructive feedback provided. Based on the reviews received, I tried my best to address all the suggestions on how to improve the article and introduced the following changes:

• included an additional reference (Bhatia, 2023) in the last paragraph of the theoretical framework section
• shifted the emphasis from building a positive self-image into the ways motherhood is weaponized and re-politicized
• introduced a structural change to provide a nuanced context before the textual analysis, i.e. I put the discourse practice section before the text section
• revised the words used, corrected typos and proofread the article

Should you have any further comments, I look forward to receiving them.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has significantly improved, including in its structure, clarity, and argument. It is in far better shape now, and is much clearer. I want to acknowledge and appreciate the amount of work that has clearly been put into it, and the important contribution it can be making. That being said, I think a bit more work needs to be done to develop the 'so what' of the argument. The Discussion, in this respect, needs to explore what the stakes of this are and what it means and the framing of 'emancipation' and 'agency' needs to be unpacked and examined.Indeed, this section particularly needs work to develop what its saying as it seems to stop short - and if read alone it can be read as a celebration of this agency even. What it says needs to be continued - it should end not with 'entrusts women with a particular role' but with specifying what this role is and the ironies of this emancipation being a conduit and enactment of oppression, for example.

I think the paper would benefit from an engagement with critical family and femininity studies, and with decolonial scholarship that examines white femininity and its racist works for example. What is still missing from the article is this: how do we make sense of what you have identified quite well? How do we theorise it? What does it mean and what does it challenge in how we understand social dynamics, and which social dynamics exactly? Is it surprising and exceptional that certain groups of women do this or is it, as critical, decolonial, and feminism of colour has long argued, this is standard working of white liberal femininity? How can you connect to that scholarship as a way of spelling out the contribution, but also as a way of better situating the piece and its ethical and political stakes as a potentially anti-violent anti-discrimination intervention? A stronger literature review (including studies on white feminism from a decolonial and racial studies perspective) would help address this. Further developing the conclusion, and spelling out the ambivalences and stakes of this some more, would also help in this.  

 

I am not sure the identified 'further research' bit is useful or coherent in this context and would suggest removing it if word count is needed.

 

I also think a number of statements throughout the piece need to be nuanced, contextualized, toned down and/or given caveats. There are some broad statement that are a bit too black/white and these are better reworked. For example:

Women’s emancipation in politics is about acknowledging their ability to take part 712
in the public sphere on equal terms with men. - According to whom is this women's emancipation?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Has significantly improved, a bit more work is needed to finesse it and to make sure that there is a clear articulation of the argument (especially as not to read as a condoning of racist and homophobic 'agency').

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review. I very much appreciate your kind words and value the constructive feedback provided. Based on the reviews received, I tried my best to address all the suggestions on how to improve the article and introduced the following changes:

• included an additional reference (Bhatia, 2023) in the last paragraph of the theoretical framework section
• shifted the emphasis from building a positive self-image into the ways motherhood is weaponized and re-politicized
• introduced a structural change to provide a nuanced context before the textual analysis, i.e. I put the discourse practice section before the text section
• revised the words used, corrected typos and proofread the article

Should you have any further comments, I look forward to receiving them.

Best regards,