Western Foreign Policy and Hungarian Nationalism
How does a country liberate itself from oppression when oppression becomes normalized within the culture? While transnational feminists express the importance cultural relativism and historical contexts of other cultures (Abu-Lughod, 2002) how does one alleviate a matrix of oppressions in a culture that has never respected the rights of anything other than the normative, heterosexual, ableist and biologically Hungarian male in a paternalistic and misogynistic country? How does one alter the treatment of the “Other” in a country where the “Other “ is the collective majority and where any differences are eliminated with violence? Further, how does the foreign policy of other nations influence different cultures?
In this article, I posit that it is the foreign policy that Western nations impose on developing nations which disregards their cultural norms assists in intensifying gender, sexual, economic, education and ethnic oppressions (Balogh, 2011). As a result, the government of the developing nation responds harshly to anything that is not normative in that culture.While Hungary could hardly ever be considered a beacon of equality, it was the foreign policy of Western nations, who did not see past their own manifest destiny and ideological colonization which helped exasperate the current state of affairs that Hungary is embroiled in. By dismissing the culture of an entire nation and forcing economic and political changes onto it, the West has successfully assisted political elites in pushing through a nationalistic agenda.
When the West descended into Hungary, their ethnocentric approach to a country and culture they deemed inferior to their own, and subsequent failure to globalize, assisted in Hungary’s nationalistic and oppressive ideology. While the U.S.S.R took Hungary’s natural resources, the West stripped it of its market capabilities by introducing third world wages to the population, the Euro Zone, and by withholding economic and humanitarian aid if the Hungarian government did not meet its demands (Hinsey, 2012; Ghodsee, 2004; Arpad, 1994; Adamik, 1991). More and more often, foreign policy of Western governments and organizations, but specifically norm entrepreneurs, the European Union and a large number of non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations and multinational corporations, fail to include the culture of the countries they alter into their global agendas. This results in catastrophic consequences for the citizens of the country.
More than twenty years after Hungary was “liberated” from the oppressive regime imposed on the country by the U.S.S.R., their secret police, and a cruel Hungarian government, Hungary is now being crushed by a hybrid capitalist-socialist system that was thrust upon it (Jordan, 2010; Olsen 1997). As a result, the political ideology is turning increasingly backward and nationalistic. This nationalistic ideology is littered with misogyny and patriarchy, as the Hungarian government is heralding a return to the past, complete with traditional gender roles and the importance of a large Hungarian nuclear family (Nielsen, 2013; Balogh, 2011; Beres-Deak, 2011; Janos, 2011). Unfortunately, this summoning for a return to what is perceived as ethnically Hungarian is a return to feudalism, indentured servitude and constant conflict (Janos, 2011) where all but ethnic Hungarian men would face severe oppression at multiple intersections. While this feudal political ideology has not quite taken hold, the rise in popularity of radical religious political parties is alarming for the future of an increasingly unstable country. Further combined with this, is that the oppression experienced by certain Hungarians prior to World War I never truly left. It was brutally suppressed under a communist ideology and exploded when Hungarian culture clashed with Western ideology (Nielsen, 2013; Jordan, 2010; Olsen, 1997).
This included and currently includes any and all genders, ethnicities, nationalities or socially constructed categories which do not conform to the ethnic Hungarian nuclear family. They are openly persecuted, demonized and blamed for the troubles of the nation. The severity of these oppressions compounds and multiplies if an individual occupies more than on oppressive category. In a nationalistic country of a little over ten million, which includes over two million ethnic minorities, one can assume that at least 20% of the population is discriminated against based solely on ethnicity. That assumption fails to account for discrimination that is directed at any individual who is mentally or physically disabled, a closeted or open member of the gay and lesbian community (Uitz, 2004), women who do not thoroughly embrace femininity and motherhood (Balogh, 2011), men who do not conform to Hungarian concepts of masculinity and everything and anything that threatens or is perceived to threaten Hungarian nationalism (Koncz, 2008; Smith, 2007; Nagy, 2005; Goldfarb, 1997; Haney, 1994). The Hungarian government seems to be utilizing the tactics that were used by the Third Arrow Party which controlled the country under the Third Reich (Nielsen, 2013; Hinsey, 2012; Smith, 2007; Chiva, 2005; Sanchez-Osorio, 2001; Audit, 1999; Haney, 1994) This is demonstrated in the amending of the Hungarian Constitution which legalized the discrimination and oppression of the minorities listed above, and anything that is not the ideal ethnic Hungarian (Hinsey, 2012)
Prior to the constitutional amendments, the legislative changes made for accession into European Union were not enforced due to doctors, police officers and judges who violated their sworn oaths to protect the citizens of Hungary (Fabian, 2012). Women and children are routinely abused, members of the gay and lesbian community are forced to “pass” as heterosexual in public for fear of being attacked, Roma families fear leaving their small communities for healthcare and education (Nielsen, 2013, Kazai et al, 2013). Further, politicians argue that if women would simply stay at home and have children for the nation that domestic violence would not be an issue (Human Rights Watch, 2013; Nielsen, 2013; Fabian, 2012; Szalai, 1991). Members of the Jewish community face virulent anti-semitism. Compiled onto the already oppressive government who obtains immunity from the international community, Hungarian society follows in the footsteps of its government and enforces the same oppressions onto minority communities and individuals.
As the country falls further into poverty and dissent politicians, who profited from the fall of communism and Western corporations colonizing the Hungarian market, are looking for a scapegoat (Jordan, 2010). As such, Hungarians have harnessed a racist, nationalist rhetoric blaming the financial problems, and thus all problems of the nation, on those who are not ethnic Hungarian or those who do not comply with normative Hungarian standards (Nielsen, 2013; Imre, 2008; Chiva, 2005; Nagy, 2005; Ghodsee, 2004). As the country diligently works to annihilate any political and human rights of those who differ from the ideal Hungarian, a violent backlash against the ideology of feminism and women’s rights is utilized. Previously, Hungarians blamed the Roma and Jewish communities for the problems of the country. Now, with the assistance of Western ideology, the Hungarian government is now able to blame the women of Hungary for the faults of the nation. Utilizing the ideology promoted by Western feminists, the Hungarian successfully caricatures and demonizes gender rights in. This began when Western feminists attempted to dismantle the patriarchal family in the early 1990s, stating that it was the source of oppression and the plight of the nation. Apathetic to the cultural importance of the family in Hungarian society. While feminists blamed the patriarchal family, the paternalistic government, who had historically viewed the hearth in the control of women, agreed enthusiastically. “The movement blames women for the increasing mortality of middle-aged men, the rising divorce rate, the falling birth-rate, and the generally decreasing stability of families” (Adamik, 1991). Since the family plays such an integral role in Hungarian culture, the Hungarian government focuses its attentions on influencing and shaping this area of Hungarian life. Western feminists inadvertently gave Hungary a perfect scapegoat.
While there are various mistakes Western feminists made when they attempted to introduce Western ideology in Hungary, the fatal mistake of attacking the family unit was its undoing. Western feminists came into the country peddling the idea that women were the same as men, that Hungarian women did not want to be at home with their families, that they should fight the womanly fight transform themselves into the equals of men (Jung, 1996). “Western feminists are accused of falsely assuming that all women share important interests and desires, that Western notions of gender, sexual difference, and patriarchy can apply cross-culturally, and of valorizing the West as the best model for women’s struggle for equality and power.” (Olsen, 1997). The complete disregard of Hungarian history was a slap in the face of Hungarian women who thought democracy and capitalism meant freedom. Under communism, it was the family unit that Hungarians used to escape and to build a sanctuary (Beres-Deak, 2011; Morvai, 2004). Apathy and blatant disregard for Hungarian culture, specifically with regard to the importance of the family, and Hungarian history secured a distrust of the West.
Olsen (1997) argues that “Western feminists are accused of falsely assuming that all women share important interests and desires, that Western notions of gender, sexual difference, and patriarchy can apply cross-culturally, and of valorizing the West as the best model for women’s struggle for equality and power.” Hungarian women, under communism, were rewarded by the state for having children. The state assisted women with social services, maternity leave and other economic incentives. While this disappeared after communism, the Hungarian government is trying provide the same economic incentives. The only difference is that these incentives are only provided by the state if women marry and reproduce and that these economic incentives provide women with the bare necessities of life. It is the Hungarian governments way of providing incentives to reproduce and create more ethnic Hungarians (Smith, 2007). As a result of these economic incentives, women are seen as acquisitions once more. While the brunt of the persecution falls onto the shoulders of all women, it specifically impacts those men and women who do not embrace the Hungarian rhetoric that posits a woman’s place is in the home, reproducing Hungarian offspring and taking care of the family (Koncz, 2008; Smith, 2007; Nagy, 2005; Goldfarb, 1997; Haney, 1994). They are seen as selfish and treasonous. While Western feminists were destined for failure in Hungary, what was not anticipated was how their ideology would would be used to distort the concept of gender equality and cause more matrices of oppression within the country.
Imre (2008) notes that the more insecure a country is, the more likely they are to embrace nationalism and that with nationalism comes restrictions on gender and sexuality. As a result, oppressive action is not connected to a gender, an ethnicity or a sexuality. It is connected and intersects with gender, ethnicity, sexuality and anything which challenges the normative.
“...a resurgence of macho nationalism and patriarchy in the eastern states, belongs to men. This is linked to the decreasing participation of women in the public sphere in post-1989 eastern European countries, in the erosion of their rights there, and in the increasing liminality that women as carriers of national cultural experience in states that themselves liminal to Europe.” (Griffin 2003, p. 54).
Lack of cultural empathy and colonization are critiques that frequently occur with West. Whereas Hungary is nationalistic, Western powers are ethnocentric. Rita Beres-Deak (2011) uses the European Social Survey to explain that Hungarians typically place the importance of family above all else, including other relationships that they may or may not have. As such, the typical Hungarian family unit has a massive impact on not only the daily lives of Hungarians, but the choices that they make in life, the careers they choose and the people that they date. Any problem, any disappointment, anything out of the norm is not just a reflection oneself, it is a reflection of the family and this, a reflection of the country. The very idea of being rejected by one's family, as a Hungarian, is devastating. Part of the reason gender roles have been able to be so reinforced in Hungarian culture is because of this fear of disappointing the family (Balogh, 2011; Beres-Deak, 2011). In Hungary, the family is the reason for living.
“A married couple is supposed to sacrifice everything for their children, their friends,
their interests, their hobbies, their time, energy, and money… They need to provide everything needed in life until their son or daughter gets married; even after their children get married a couple still feels obligated to feed, clothe, and manage their children’s lives - it is their purpose in life, to raise children.” (Smith 2007, p. 12).
While Western nations praised Hungary as a beacon of Western ideology (Hinsey, 2012) due to their Western legislative changes, the enforcement of those legislative changes did not occur. Further, the legislative were purely political in order for the country to ascend into the European Union. Ascension into the European Union would provide Hungary with desperately needed economic funds to attempt to rebuild the nation. Currently, as there is no way to actually be expelled from the European Union, Hungary has begun to deliberately alter its legislation to reflect the current political agenda. As stated, once an attack on the patriarchal family was made, Hungarians began to question the ideologies being imposed on them critically. Attacking the family unit was absolutely unacceptable and was seen as an attack on the country. The U.S.S.R. tried to suppress the family: “The State consciously tried to weaken the role of the family, considered a dangerous capitalist institution. As a result, during state Socialism the family was a sphere of resistance. After the transition, political - especially right-wing - rhetoric has emphasized the importance of the family for the survival of the state and the nation” (Beres-Deak 2011, p. 339).
Unfortunately, at least to Hungarians, the West who claimed to be the antithesis of communism, had seemingly presented themselves no differently with regard to family (Arpad, 1994; Haney, 1994; Olsen, 1997; Snitow, 1999; Ghodsee, 2004; Imre, 2008; Lazar, 2009; Guenther, 2011).
As stated, the family represents the crux of Hungarian culture. It is the single most important aspect of the Hungarian community. This emphasis on the image and reputation of the family deters many Hungarians from living a fulfilling and happy life. For example, members of the LGBT community from coming out to their family and friends because of a fear of being rejected by their family, yet their inability to adopt children and have a family also incurs rejection and discrimination. In a culture where family is everything, the government punishes by withholding this. Men and women who focus on higher education or a career have their sexuality and priorities questioned by family, friends and complete strangers because of their decision to not start or, perhaps, not have, a family. (Sanchez-Osorio, 2001; Guenther, 2011; Smith, 2007). While differing ethnicities and religions face persecution because of differing religious and cultural ideologies, all who refrain from familial ideologies, specifically marital and childbearing duties, are oppressed by the nation, the community, their family and friends, their colleagues and their co-workers, and their culture and society. Disregarding the lived experiences of women in Hungary was devastating to Western ideology. The lived experience of being a Hungarian woman in a corrupt, communist government where conformity was praised and individuality was punishable by death is unconscionable to most Westerners. Life under communism was a life that was dictated to Hungarians from birth. They were told where to go to school, what they would learn, what ideology they could embrace, where they could live, what car they could drive, who they could marry and the job they would spend the rest of their lives doing. The only freedom Hungarians experienced was in their homes, where they were not comrades or solely products of the socialist state (Goldfarb, 1997). Having Western ideology swoop in and attempt to state that the very place that was previously the only part of life one had control over, the only place a Hungarian living under communism could be free to do what they wished was wrong, was apprehensible in the eyes of Hungarians. After over seventy years of being told by the international community of what they could and could not do, and could and could not be, Hungarians were refusing to have that occur again. Western ideology was dismissed by many at this point (Goldfarb, 1997).
As Hungary transitioned into a capitalist economy, which was necessary to ascend into the European Union, poverty and joblessness soared (Kazai et al, 2013; Beres-Deak, 2011; Koncz, 2008; Morvai, 2004; Goldfarb 1997). Currently the unemployment rate is nearing fifty percent (Jordan, 2010). The social services which were once provided by the communist government have disappeared under capitalism (Acsady 1999; Kiss, 1991). As Hungary falls into more and more debt, a distrust for the government has become palpable where the so-called communist government is yearned for (Hinsey 2012). Further exacerbating the situation is the machismo of Hungarian males who have succumbed to alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide as their perceived masculinity, which is tied into their status in the community, their wage and their employment, has disappeared (Eberhardt 1991, Adamik, 1991). As a result of this perceived loss of masculinity, domestic violence has exploded without repercussions (Human Rights Watch, 2013). Prior to 2013, domestic violence was not illegal unless there was extreme violence and, as explained before, figures of authority encouraged victims to refrain from making formal reports or complaints (Human Rights Watch, 2013; Fabian, 2012; Smith, 2007; Adamik, 1991). After 2013, victims of domestic violence have been routinely shamed by doctors, police officers and judges if they attempted to speak out (Human Rights Watch, 2013; Kazai et al, 2013).
Western feminism failed to take into account the lived historical and cultural experiences of Hungarian women, rallying under the banner of sisterhood. This made Hungarian women weary and hesitant of the West, and provided the government with a reason to discredit Western ideologies. With the rise of capitalism, employers are hesitant to hire women who have children because they are considered unstable employment as women are primarily those who will stay home if their children are sick and it is obviously women who are most likely to need to take maternity leave. Yet, they’re unlikely to hire women who do not have children because they are seen as parasitical and anti-Hungarian (Kazai et al, 2013; Jordan, 2010; Koncz, 2008; Nagy, 2005). What does this mean for those women who are unable to have children, who choose to not have children for any number of reasons or for closeted lesbian couples who are not allowed to adopt children?
As Hungarians rally around a nationalistic agenda which stresses the importance of a return to traditionality and the gender norms that are associated with the nuclear family, women who do not recognize their “rightful place” as mothers and wives are going to continue to face oppression because their actions directly contradict the policy that the Hungarian government is attempting to implement. Though Hungarian women feel the oppression of their country slowly suffocating them into submission, there are various severities of oppression that accumulate on top of simply being biologically female. Roma women not only face the oppression of their own highly patriarchal community, but they also face the oppression of so-called ethnic Hungarians and a highly ethnocentric government that actively propagates this caricature of the Roma (Nielsen, 2013). Like the United States demonization of the “Welfare Queen”, Roma women are seen as over-sexualized, immoral and lazy thieves and murderers and this has been a concept promoted through the entirety of Europe since the Roma immigrated to the region in the 9th Century. The difference now is that instead of simply oppressing ethnic minorities, the Hungarian government is oppressing ethnic Hungarians which do not conform to the government's idea of what a real Hungarian is considered to be. Instead of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide, oppressive legislation, cultural indoctrination and an apathetic international community enforce the oppression. This legislation impacts every aspect of life for the Hungarian-proclaimed minorities.
The Western ideology and foreign policy approach failed, as did Western feminist rhetoric. By failing to take into account the lived historical and cultural experiences of the population of Hungary, which are fraught with nationalism, ethnic cleansing, gender violence and occupation to instead attempt to rally under the banner of universal democracy, the wants and needs of Hungarian men and women were discarded, just as had been done under communism. Further, it provided the Hungarian government with ammunition with which it needed to discredit any association with normative. The West is often criticized of promoting the concept of democracy as a universal ideology, assuming that all cultures are the same; allowing any differences to collapse in unimportance, hurting the very people they were attempting to “liberate” in the first place. Western feminist rhetoric exacerbated the distrust of Western ideology because of its criticism and dismissal of the family. Further, feminism did not exist in Hungary before, thus it could be utilized by the government as a scapegoat (Adamik, 1991; Arpad 1994; Ghodsee 2004). By attacking the patriarchal family, Hungary regressed to the archaic and feudal ideology it had propagated before the first World War, oppressing those who digressed from normative Hungarian culture and lifestyle (Kazai et al, 2013; Chiva, 2005).
The impact that the foreign policy has on other countries is unimaginable, as I believe this paper has proven. It is pivotal that Western nations who attempt to engage in nation-building begin to at least acknowledge the historical and cultural differences that exist in the international system. If nation-building countries continue to blatantly ignore the needs of foreign countries that they insist on assisting, they will continue to cause more harm to the people of the country while providing the government in power with reasons and excuses to continue to repress and suppress its citizens.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist. 104(3). pp. 783-790. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Acsady, Judit. 1999. “Urges and Obstacles: Chances for Feminism in Eastern Europe.” Women’s Studies International Forum. 22:4. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Adamik, Maria. 1991. “Hungary: A Loss of Rights?” Feminist Review. 39. pp. 166-170. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Arpad, Susan S. 1994. “On Teaching Women’s Studies in Hungary.” Women’s Studies International Forum. 17(5). JSTOR. (Accessed March 4, 2014).
Balogh, Andrea P. 2011. “Kinging in Hungarian Lesbian Culture.” Journal of Lesbian Studies. 15(3). pp. 299-310. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Beres-Deak, Rita. 2011. “‘I Was A Dark Horse in the Eyes of Her Family’: The Relationship of Cohabiting Female Couples and the Families in Hungary.” Journal of Lesbian Studies. 15(3). pp. 337-355. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Chiva, Christina. 2005. “Women in Post-Communist Politics: Explaining Under-Representation in the Hungarian and Romanian Parliaments.” Europe-Asia Studies. 57(7). pp. 969-994. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Conrath, Alan Brady. 2003. “A Tale of Two Eastern European Cities.” Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. Web. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Eberhardt, Eva and Julia Szalai. 1991. “Women of Hungary.” Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General Information, Communication, Culture, Women’s Information Services. 32. Web. (Accessed April 7, 2014).
Fabian, Katalin. 2012. “Defining Domestic Violence in Hungary: Successes and Continuing Challenges.” Scholar Research Brief. December 2012. GoogleScholar. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Ghodsee, Kristin. 2004. “Feminism-by-Design: Emerging Capitalisms, Cultural Feminism, and Women’s Nongovernmental Organizations in Post Socialist Eastern Europe.” Signs. 29(3). pp. 727-753. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Goldfarb, Jeffrey C. 1997. “Why Is There No Feminism after Communism?” Social Research. 64(2). pp. 235-258. ABI/INFORM. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Griffin, Gabriele. 2003. “(Other) Feminisms - European Women’s Studies/Women’s Studies in Europe.” Hecate. 29(2). pp. 50-61. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Guenther, Katja M. 2011. “The Possibilities and Pitfalls of NGO Feminism: Insights from Postsocialist Eastern Europe.” Signs. 36(4). pp. 863-887. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2013).
Haney, Lynne. 1994. “From Proud Worker to Good Mother: Women, the State, and Regime Change in Hungary.” A Journal of Women Studies. 14(3). pp. 113-150. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Hinsey, Ellen. 2012. “The New Opposition in Hungary.” New England Review. 33(2). pp. 126-142. Project MUSE. (Accessed March 5, 2014).
Human Rights Watch. 2013.Unless Blood Flows. Lack of Protection from Domestic Violence in Hungary. NY: New York.
Imre, Aniko. 2008. “Lesbian Nationalism: Winner of the 2007 Catharine Stimpson Prize.” Signs. 33(2). pp. 255-282. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Janos, Andrew C. 2011. The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825-1945. Princeton University Press. Princeton: New Jersey.
Jordan, Michael J. 2010. “The Roots of Hate.” World Policy Journal. 27(3). pp. 99-111. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Jung, Nora. 1996. “What is New About the ‘New’ Women’s Movements in Eastern Europe?” The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms. 1(3). pp. 920-925. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Kiss, Yudit. 1991. “The Second ‘No’: Women in Hungary.” Feminist Review. 39(Autumn). pp. 49-57. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Koncz, Katalin. 2008. “Women in the Hungarian Labor Market Compared with the European Union.” International Journal of Sociology. 38(4). pp. 76-93. JSTOR. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Kazai, Agnes and Bernadett Szita and Gabor Porzce. 2013. “‘Backwards in High Heels’: Education and Career Challenges in Hungary.” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(5). pp. 23-46. GoogleScholar. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Lazar, Michelle M. 2009. “Communicating (post)feminisms in Discourse.” Discourse and Communication. 3(4). pp. 339-344. SAGE. (Accessed March 5, 2014).
Morvai, Krisztina. 2004. “Women and the Rule of Law in Hungary.” Feminist Review. 76. pp. 100-109. JSTOR. (Accessed March 3, 2014).
Nagy, Beata. 2005. “Gendered Management in Hungary: Perception and Explanations.” Women in Management Review. 20(5). pp. 345-360. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Nielsen, Helene Pristed. 2013. “Joint Purpose? Intersectionality in the Hands of Anti-Racist and Gender Equality Activists in Europe.” Ethnicities. 13(3). pp. 276-294. Sage Publications. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Olsen, Frances Elisabeth. 1997. “Feminism in Central and Eastern Europe: Risks and Possibilities of American Engagement.” The Yale Law Journal. 106:7.pp. 2215-2257. ABI/INFORM. (Accesed March 1, 2014).
Sanchez-Osorio, Marilyn. 2001. “The Road to Recognition and Application of the Fundamental Constitutional Right to Marry of Sexual Minorities in the United States, the Netherlands, and Hungary: A Comparative Legal Study.” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law. 8. pp. 131-149. HeinOnline.(Accessed March 6, 2014).
Smith, Jeffrey Alyn. 2007. “The Five Year Plan to Trap Your Man: Discourses on Marriage, Family, and Divorce in Hungary.” The Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe. 7(2). pp. 3-18. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Snitow, Ann. 1999. “Cautionary Tales.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law). 93. pp. 35-42. GoogleScholar. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
Szalai, Julia. 1991. “Some Aspects of the Changing Situation of Women in Hungary.” Signs. 17(1). pp. 152-170. JSTOR. (Accessed March 1, 2014).
Uitz, Renata. 2004. “Hungary: Mixed Prospects for the Constitutionalization of Gay Rights.” International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2(4). pp. 705-715. HeinOnline. (Accessed March 6, 2014).
