ABSTRACT This article interrogates studies focusing on gender and Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in Zimbabwe, highlighting the emerging patterns and missing linkages. We utilize theories of intersectionality and agency to argue for more robust empirical research on the varied experiences of women. An analysis of intersectionality of experiences and agency is necessary to understand how women were differentially positioned and, how this is ultimately linked to how they got access to and ownership of land. The article posits that whilst gender is important, there is need for further analysis of who got what, how and where under FTLRP. To that end, the article asks: How is gender construed in relation to women’s access to FTLRP (what is included and excluded)? Whilst women appear losers as portrayed in many studies, was it only gender that determined access? What about age, nationality, class, political affiliation and traditional roots among other aspects? How did the 18% quoted in several studies get land? What about married women in this debate? Where women just victims in the FTLRP? We argue that ultimately other factors like patronage may as well explain exclusion (and inclusion) of women but this is better understood within intersectionality theoretical premises. At the same time, we also posit that women were not merely victims but used versatile tactics and strategies to get land hence invoking the notion of agency.

中文翻译：

---

超越性别：在津巴布韦审问妇女在FTLRP中的经历

摘要本文对津巴布韦的性别与快速土地改革计划（FTLRP）进行了研究，强调了新兴的模式和缺失的联系。我们利用交叉性和代理理论来主张对妇女的各种经历进行更强有力的实证研究。有必要对经验和代理机构的交叉性进行分析，以了解妇女的处境如何以及她们最终如何与她们获得土地的所有权有关。该文章认为，尽管性别很重要，但仍需要进一步分析谁在FTLRP中获得了什么，如何获得和在何处获得。为此，文章提出了一个问题：关于妇女获得FTLRP的方式（包括和排除的内容），如何解释性别？正如许多研究所描绘的，女性似乎是失败者，决定访问的只是性别吗？那么年龄，国籍，阶级，政治背景和传统根源又如何呢？几项研究中引用的18％是如何获得土地的？在这场辩论中，已婚妇女呢？妇女在FTLRP中只是受害者吗？我们认为，最终其他因素（例如光顾）也可以解释女性的排斥（和包含），但这在交叉性理论前提下可以更好地理解。同时，我们还认为，妇女不仅是受害者，而且还运用多种策略和策略来获得土地，从而援引代理的概念。政治背景和传统根源？几项研究中引用的18％是如何获得土地的？在这场辩论中，已婚妇女呢？妇女在FTLRP中只是受害者吗？我们认为，最终其他因素（例如光顾）也可以解释女性的排斥（和包含），但这在交叉性理论前提下可以更好地理解。同时，我们还认为，妇女不仅是受害者，而且还运用多种策略和策略来获得土地，从而援引代理的概念。政治背景和传统根源？几项研究中引用的18％是如何获得土地的？在这场辩论中，已婚妇女呢？妇女在FTLRP中只是受害者吗？我们认为，最终其他因素（例如光顾）也可以解释女性的排斥（和包含），但这在交叉性理论前提下可以更好地理解。同时，我们还认为，妇女不仅是受害者，而且还运用多种策略和策略来获得土地，从而援引代理的概念。