The concept of intersectionality is reviewed and further developed for more effective use. Six dilemmas in the debates on the concept are disentangled, addressed and resolved: the distinction between structural and political intersectionality; the tension between ‘categories’ and ‘inequalities’; the significance of class; the balance between a fluidity and stability; the varyingly competitive, cooperative, hierarchical and hegemonic relations between inequalities and between projects; and the conundrum of ‘visibility’ in the tension between the ‘mutual shaping’ and the ‘mutual constitution’ of inequalities. The analysis draws on critical realism and on complexity theory in order to find answers to the dilemmas in intersectionality theory.

Intersectionalities have long been theorised. It is time to move on to empirical testing of intersectionality theory in order to develop it further. The paper analyses visibility of multiple intersecting inequalities in policy on violence against women in Britain. It finds and develops a continuum of inclusion of multiple inequalities to analyse visibility in policy, ranging from the simple naming of inequalities, the intersection of inequalities, and fields of violence and policy domains, to the inclusion of the voices of minoritised women. It is proposed that while recognition of intersectionality is required for good quality policy, it is the way in which this is achieved that is particularly important. We argue that the implications of previous research that finds silencing of groups positioned at the point of intersection of two or more inequalities and invisibility of multiple inequalities in policy need to be re-thought. Previous research showing silencing and invisibility is based on a too narrow understanding of the concept of intersectionality and has not taken sufficiently into account the implications of the politico-discursive process of degendering.

What happens when we focus primarily on violence as a central question—either within the gender regime approach or by making violence regime an approach in itself? The article first interrogates gender regimes theoretically and empirically through a focus on violence, and then develops violence regimes as a fruitful approach, conceptualizing violence as inequality in its own right, and a means to deepen the analysis of gender relations, gender domination, and policy. The article is a contribution to ongoing debate, which specifically and critically engages with the gender regime framework.

This article builds on feminist scholarship on intersectionality to address violence against women, and state policy thereon. It takes up the challenge of analysing the complex, situated and spatial relationship between theorizing on violence against women and state policy on such violence. Drawing on extensive comparative European data, it explores the relations of gender and intersectionality, conceptualized as gendered intersectionalities, by examining how multiple inequalities are made visible and invisible in state policy and debates in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Attention is paid to different forms of gendered intersectionalities in policy, for example, tendencies to degender violence against women. A key aim of the article is to investigate how comparative analysis can be a starting point for assessing if, how and to what extent the inclusion of multiple inequalities could increase the quality of policy, for both reducing and stopping violence, and assisting those subject to violence.

Measuring violence against women raises methodological questions, as well as the wider question of how to understand violence and locate it in relation to a societal context. This is all the more relevant given that measurement of violence against women in the EU has made an interesting phenomenon apparent, the so-called ‘Nordic Paradox’, whereby prevalence is higher in more gender equal countries. This article examines this phenomenon by exploring a range of factors—methodological, demographic and societal—to contextualise disclosed levels of violence. The analysis makes use of a multilevel analytic approach to take into account how macro and micro levels contribute to the prevalence of violence. The intercepts are then used to illustrate how taking these into account might provide an alternative ranking of levels of violence against women in EU countries. The results show that the ‘Nordic Paradox’ disappears—and can be undone—when factors at individual and country levels are considered. We conclude that the ‘Nordic Paradox’ cannot be understood independently from a wider pattern of violence in society, and should be seen as connected and co-constituted in specific formations, domains or regimes of violence. Our results show that the use of multi-level models can provide new insights into the factors that may be related to disclosed prevalence of violence against women. This can generate a better understanding of how violence against women functions as a system, and in turn inform better policy responses.

The restructuring of the equality architecture in Britain is analyzed for its implications for the theory and practice of intersectionality. Going beyond McCall and Hancock, different approaches to the intersection of multiple inequalities are identified and investigated for their utility in the theory and practice of equality in the context of multiple intersecting equalities. In particular, the preference for “mutual constitution” rather than “mutual shaping” is interrogated. Several definitions of and several criteria of quality of the equality architecture are identified, drawing on a discussion of the literature. It is found that while restructuring of the British equality architecture increased its quality in some aspects, by widening its coverage of multiple inequalities and policy domains, in other aspects it reduced it, notably in its resources. The findings vary according to the definition of the equality architecture deployed. Conclusions for the theory and practice of intersectionality are drawn. The prioritization of “mutual constitution” in theory and practice is found to be flawed; “mutual shaping” is offered as a more successful approach.