Women Rights Denial by Governments and Individuals - Essay Example

Women Rights Denial by Governments and Individuals Preamble The online encyclopedia defines the noun "feminism" in two ways as belief in the social, political and economic equality of sexes and (2) the movement organized around this belief. The movement has occurred mainly in Europe and the United States. The social, intellectual, political, economical and cultural changes occurring in the 1600s and 1700s served to create just the right climate for this movement to originate. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) is considered to be the pioneer of Women's Rights movement. Her 1792 book A Vindication of the Rights of Women is the basis around which the movement developed. In this book she argued that men and women are born equal. Their inequality is as a result of social construction which can be reversed by providing women equal opportunities in education, training and employment. But it was in America that the movement originated formally and in an organized manner. The Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Coffin Mott and others issued in a Women's Convention in Seneca Falls New York in 1848 marks the start of this movement. The right to vote emerged as a central idea of this convention. When the right was finally won in 1920, the movement continued in other directions. In the 1960s, there was a new realization of the types of discrimination against women and a rise in Women's Rights organizations. The "second wave" of feminists rallied for birth control and abolition of discrimination against women. Esther Peterson and Betty Friedman were the most prominent advocators of women's rights during this period. Their ground breaking efforts finally resulted in the UN taking affirmative action in this regard. Today, the movement stands at a place where it can take on extremely controversial issues like women's reproductive rights, pornography, sexual harassment and surrogate motherhood. The "third wave" is tackling these and other thorny issues. UN Mandate In 1974, the UN Commission on Human Rights decided, in principle, to prepare a single, comprehensive and internationally binding instrument to eliminate discrimination against women. It took some time for the Commission to prepare the document. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 by votes of 130 to none, with 10 abstentions At the special ceremony that took place at the Copenhagen Conference on 17 July 1980, 64 States signed the Convention and two States submitted their instruments of ratification. On 3 September 1981, 30 days after the twentieth member- State had ratified it, the Convention entered into force - faster than any previous human rights convention had done - thus bringing to a climax United Nations efforts to codify comprehensively international legal standards for women. [1] Its content is divided into four parts. The first part deals with the concept of human rights. It presents the evolution and expansion of this concept and its philosophical formulations and theoretical reflection on the nature and sources of human rights. International standards in the next two parts are grouped, first, from the point of view of categories of human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural, and then in relation to the protection of certain categories of vulnerable persons (women, children, minorities, indigenous people and migrant workers). [2] There has been a growing realization that the definition of "human rights" needs to be revised to fully include "women's rights" in it. The International Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995, was another landmark achievement in this direction. After much dispute and heated debate, the final program of action stated, "While the significance of national and religious particularities in various historical, cultural, and religious systems must be kept in mind, it is the duty of states regardless of their political, economic, and cultural systems to protect and promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms". This affirmation is arguably the most far-reaching stance on women's rights taken in any UN gathering. [3] Current Situation These documents are popularly hailed as crowning achievements of human rights organizations. But a critical reading of these documents brings to notice a fact that has limiting effect on them. Be it the Human Rights Declaration, the CEDAW or other subsequent instruments, all of them focus on the governments for affirmative action. All the rights mentioned in these documents are the rights against the states. But, in case of women, whatever discrimination they face is not by state but in their private capacity by their husbands, boyfriends or fathers. Yet the documents are focused on the states. And the states hesitate to take affirmative action due to many reasons and compulsions. Therefore, the discrimination against women continues. A very pertinent observation in this context has been made by Rebecca Cook. She says, " If a state facilitates conditions, accommodates, tolerates, justifies, or excuses private denials of women's rights, the state will bear responsibility. The state will be responsible not directly for the private acts, but for its own lack of diligence to prevent, control, correct, or discipline such private acts through its own executive, legislative or judicial organs". [4]. The legal position of UN documents comes under much suspicion from the above remarks. Moreover, it is astonishing to note that most of the countries, including USA, have not ratified the CEDAW. Even among the signatories there are a lot of reservations mainly on cultural and/or religious grounds. Among the feminists also there are people who consider it highly objectionable for anyone outside the cultural or religious community to even raise the question whether women's rights are ensured by that community. [3]. At the same time many governments also tend to take a lighter stance on women discrimination for the reason that many forms of discrimination (like divorce and inheritance rights) do not conflict with that country's laws, which are based on religious tenets. The common reasons for non-interference by governments are:- The abuse is private The state is not an active agent in the abuse The practice is one of culture, religion or custom and thus not subject to intervention Women have social and economic rights only, not civil and political rights This creates a dilemma. The states would like to help but cannot because of cultural or religious compulsions. Martha Nussbaum has written about what she calls the "liberal dilemma" of respect for religious freedom and commitment to other human rights including women's right to equal treatment and respect. Suzan Moeller Okin, said in a talk:- One could argue that as a pre-requisite to any defense or protection of a cultural group, that group should be required to change its marriage and divorce laws in order to make women equal within them. Of course this would be a major change for many religions and cultures. But it seems to me that any group seeking official recognition and rights within a liberal society, or seeking to be part of generally recognized human rights community, should at least have to reform its teachings and practices to bring them in line with basic equalities for men and women. [3]. Another core issue is the Sexual Rights for Women. Firmly entrenched in international laws, this issue is becoming an important component of human rights. The website www.madre.org notes that, "Unfortunately, governments throughout the world are failing in their responsibility to protect sexual rights. Publicly, issues of sexuality are cloaked in a framework of denial, shame, and disapproval. Consequently: It is difficult for people to access accurate information about sexual health, including life-saving information about sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS; People often hesitate to report and seek justice in cases of sexual violence; Discrimination based on sexual preference and gender identity is rampant; Violations of sexual rights are officially condoned or encouraged In many cases, the world's most powerful political, economic, and military institutions violate sexual rights not only through oversight but also deliberately". [4]. This is perhaps one of the most controversial of women's rights. The activists argue that if a woman cannot have sexual or reproductive right her other rights are automatically restricted. But governments hesitate in this regard, especially the ones in Asia. There, due to conservativeness, this agenda is often brushed aside citing "cultural or religious" differences. Even Vatican takes a conservative stance on this issue. But these aspects cannot be so easily relegated. The world is turning into a "global village". Communities and even countries are in the throes of Multiculturism. The diversity of cultures within a community or country calls for a specific set of standards for all to follow. Conclusion The struggle for women's rights is an epic saga. Whatever success has been achieved has been purely by dint of perseverance on part of the feminists. It is unfortunate that, at times, governments and individuals fail to acknowledge these rights. In fact it has been justly argued that resolutions against whaling were passed more quickly and unanimously than resolutions for women's rights. The feminists' efforts to introduce a homogenous standard may be admirable but may also be misplaced. It is a matter of debate that rights in one culture may be taken as oppression in another. For example wearing a scarf is considered a religious obligation and a feminine trait in Muslim society but is considered persecution in Western society. Similarly wearing a skimpy bikini on the beach may give rise to a furor even in "conservative" Catholic communities. The invasion of "multiculturism" is also a force to contend with. Many countries allow different communities living there to preserve their culture. In such a situation homogeneity may itself be an infringement on the cultural freedom of that community. A more pragmatic approach is required when dealing with issues related to different cultures and religions. Works Cited 1. 2. 3. Okin, Suzan Moeller. Is Multiculturism Bad for Women. Markkula Ethics Center Lecture Series.29 October 2001. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. CEDAW, Preamble; Covenant for a New Millennium: The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (Santa Rosa CA: Free Hand Books, 1996) 9. Read More