No abstract

The Spanish state advertises itself internationally as a leading example of “Roma inclusion” and takes particular pride in its policy towards women from the Kalé minority, the main Romani group in Spain. This is reflected in a carefully deployed political communication that centres on the trope of the “empowered Gypsy woman” who will soon reach emancipation thanks to state-funded programmes. On the ground, however, Kalé women’s persistent social marginalisation is imputed on them, while antigypsyism remains unaddressed by institutions.This paper investigates the discursive strategies mobilised by institutional actors in order to rule out discussions on racism. Based on eight months of ethnographic observations as well as semi-structured interviews with professionals in Madrid, I argue that this occurs through a translation of feminist agendas,particularly on intimate partner violence (IPV), into discourses that stigmatise Kalé “culture” as intrinsically patriarchal while promoting a gadjo (non-Romani) norm. This phenomenon, which I refer to as “gadjo feminism,” manifests itself within the justice system, where professionals disproportionately resortto culturalist representations of IPV in Kalé communities, and also within NGO-piloted empowerment programmes for Kalé women which rely upon racial hierarchies while systematically dismissing women’s experiences of institutional racism.

This paper is an invitation to critically interrogate the ‘post-racial’ understanding of intersectionality in European policy work on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), through a focus on Antigypsyism in Spain’s specialised institutions. Spain’s ‘gender violence’ law has inspired international admiration for introducing measures aimed at the protection of all women regardless of their status or situation. However, its criminal justice system is marked by centuries of legislation constructing Romani women as innately suspicious. Semi-structured interviews conducted in IPV specialised courts, local police, and support services in Madrid indicate that practitioners reject legal colour-blindness and support intercultural mediation but refuse to address this racist legacy. Their intervention exposes Romani plaintiffs to harm by (1) promoting their cultural assimilation, (2) questioning their victim status, and (3) turning against their community support networks.