In this article, by showing that the burden of retrenchment in social spending in Brazil has been overwhelmingly borne by women, we assert that austerity is not gender neutral. Our research investigates the specificities of the gendered impacts of austerity in the country that have rendered Brazilian women structurally more vulnerable to the Covid-19 crisis. We base our argument on a comprehensive literature review summarizing the links between austerity and gender. In the Brazilian case, we explain women’s vulnerability in two main aspects: (1) the direct and indirect gendered impacts of austerity in Brazil since 2015, examining the underfunding of policies prior to the pandemic; (2) the gendered effects of the pandemic on already vulnerable groups, amplified by the underfunded policies and the lack of appropriate measures. We show points of proximity between the existing literature on austerity and gender in the Global North and the urgent, structural Brazilian problems.

Shaped by inconsistent policy decisions, the COVID‐19 pandemic in Brazil has made structural gender and racial inequalities more acute. Black and low‐income women are overburdened with unpaid domestic work, increased domestic violence, and more vulnerable due to informal and exploitative working regimes. These structural aspects are intensifying, since the pandemic has broadened inequalities at the intersection of gender, race, labor market, and social class. We examine pre‐ and during pandemic inequalities on three dimensions: (a) unpaid domestic and care work, (b) women's labor market participation, and (c) domestic violence. We link the care diamond model and racial stratification forwarding a feminist perspective by examining how the interlocking of race and gender in Brazil renders different socioeconomic dynamics to the detriment of Black and low‐income women. Based on this evidence, we stress that a more equal future requires a better social protection and policies targeting the articulation of gender, race, and class.

No abstract

In the last two decades, there has been considerable debate around the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Most critics of multi-sited ethnography have focused on its ontological premise, risks of holism and, most importantly, methodological applications (Hage, 2005). These topics have been further developed by adherents to a multi-sited approach, mostly through empirical examples (Falzon, 2009; Colermand and Hellerman, 2011). In this paper, I engage in this debate by problematizing my research on Brazilian culture in Los Angeles, paying special attention to the limitations I recognize in a more traditional definition of ethnography. The aspect of multi-sited ethnography that seems especially questionable is the assumption that a shared experience between researcher and informants would produce comprehension of social life. This postulation gives a superior status to the dwelling and privileges observation as the primary means of analyzing and comprehending. I reflect on the challenges I faced in doing research and how I was able to overcome previous assumptions by incorporating strategies from a multi-sited approach. Specifically, I discuss the debate around ideas around conceptualizing space, defining sites and categorizing the roles of para-ethnographers. I conclude with a short reflection on the importance of acknowledging the problems we face while conducting research and how these problems can be a guide to overcoming methodological and practical limitations.

No estudo de qualquer problema da história universal, um filho da moderna civilização europeia sempre estará sujeito à indagação de qual a combinação de fatores a que se pode atribuir o fato de na Civilização Ocidental, e somente na Civilização Ocidental, haverem aparecido fenômenos culturais dotados (como queremos crer) de um desenvolvimento universal em seu valor e significado. (WEBER, M., 1999)