The Interpretation and Application of the Law with a Gender Perspective in Spain: Challenges and Outstanding Issues
, Ana Marrades Puig 2, Celia Prados GarcÃa 1 and Gloria Serrano Valverde 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article needs to add a paragraph about the progress on the issue of justice produced before the Civil War in Spain, otherwise the democratic progression and in favor of equitable justice are being made invisible. For example, how divorce law became law is a good example.
Also add a few lines from the constitutions prior to the Civil War, since Spain was a democratic country before 1939 and in an article like the one presented in doing so, even a small mention is to collaborate in erasing the past. For example, women's access to vote before the Transition. The same happens with the issue of gender violence, in Spain before 1939 initiatives began to appear.
The format of the conclusions is somewhat confusing and seems more like a fragment of another text than an article. It would be convenient redactor in a less schematic way.
It is a well written article, well documented, but something is missing, an internal life so that its reading contributes something more than a series of concepts. For this reason, the recommendation to add a brief historical context can greatly help both this article and Spanish society, which sometimes seems to have to do it all over again when they don't realize what they have done.
The examples of women are numerous: Clara Campoamor, Victoria Kent... Perhaps we should include more references within feminism than just the philosopher Amorós.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A very interesting article that I very much enjoyed reading. Compelling and convincing, I only have minor suggestions for the authors, the most important of which involves the articulation of the thoughts set out in the conclusion.
Page 1 - In the 'objectives' section, the authors refer to key theories and it might strengthen the paper to name the main ones in a footnote. Similarly, a couple of examples of the soft law referred to further down in the page could be briefly set out by way of footnote.
Page 2 - Perhaps define what is meant by 'machismo' as I think the connotations in English might be slightly different to what is meant here. Or just perhaps refer to patriarchal culture as a better expression of structural issue rather than performative practice?
There seems to be a typo in the text in Italics: is the number 1 after 'en clave de igualdad de genero' intentional?
In the penultimate line 'the masculine is regarded as superior': I wonder if it might be better to say that the masculine is regarded as the 'default' position (implying therefore that the feminine is derivative/secondary)? This seems to tie a little better with some of the language previous used. Otherwise, perhaps the authors could support it with a reference or example.
Page 4 - I would suggest the reference to children in the second paragraph is perhaps deleted. It seems slightly out of place in an article about women.
Page 5 - Second line, replace 'Spanish Constituting' with Constitution.
Page 6 - Second paragraph. The reference to the 'citizenship status of women' is a little opaque. Do the authors mean the CC recognises the formal equality criteria previously mentioned? I think a brief explanation or re-drafting for clarity would be good here.
Further down, the reference to the legal interest of the 'nasciturus' should be re-drafted to 'the legal interest of the embryo in utero, as I think many readers will not understand the language.
Page 7 - consider replacing 'writ of amparo' with 'appeal', for the same reason as before.
Conclusions: A suggestion for the authors is to tie the recommendations a little bit more closely to the existing court decisions and the shortfalls that they evidence. This, I think will enhance the clarity of the paper and traceability of the recommendations to the problems that have been presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
n-a
