Paper topic for this week
This is due next Monday.
As you may have noticed, today's readings have to do with the rights of groups, and how much sense that can make. It's a tricky question, as you can see.
Wednesday's readings have to do with the rights of women. They approach the issue from several different angles and it's hard to categorize the general approaches of those essays. One way to think about the issue of the rights women, from a theoretical perspective, is to pose the question--when we talk about women's rights, rather than human rights, are we then talking about the rights of a group? If so, what are the implications of that fact?
I don't really know how to answer that or even how to pose the question. But I'll pose another question on a related topic. Here is your paper topic for the week:
If Sen is correct that "100 million women are missing" due to gender-selective abortion and/or infanticide (and various other causes), is that a human rights issue? Consider arguments on both sides in your paper.
UPDATE: late edition--paper option #2.
Given our discussion of the challenges of women's rights and human rights in class today (Wednesday), how well does CEDAW address these challenges? Use a theoretical insight from class reading or discussion to analyze (critically or supportively) one or more articles of CEDAW.
posted by djw @ 4:16 PM
7 Comments:
No, when we talk about women's rights, we are not talking about only creating rights for a specific group that other individuals cannot share. Rather, we are talking about a group who currently is excluded (or thinks they are excluded) from basic human rights that should be extended to all persons and groups of persons. They are called "women's' rights only because women, as a group, seem to not enjoy some of these basic human rights. I think that there is no such thing as a right for one women or a group of women that SHOULD not be possessed by all. This means that there are no rights unique to women, men, children, historically challenged, rich, poor, etc. or any other group. I think it is dangerous to apply specific rights to specific groups of people and not make those rights applicable to all. It is another matter to work towards the full extension of all basic rights to certain individuals and groups with protection for individuals and those within a group.
D. Wood
Interesting... I'm not sure I exactly understand what you are saying, but I did note that you suggest their SHOULD NOT be rights that are specific to a group of people. I tend to disagree. Women are biologically different from men, children are in different stages of physical and mental development than adults, older adults suffer from loss of capacity/strength in body and mind, finally minority groups are often out numbered or subject to a prejudice society. Shouldn't these groups be considered for some specific rights that protect them? You say "there are no rights unique to women, men, children..." Are you sure, because if there aren't specifics, what keeps these groups I mentioned from being oppressed?
Since women biologically conceive and bear children, I'd say that women need specific rights that support proliferation of the species, which may be superfluous for men, such as maternity leave, the right to healthcare during pregnancy, access to nutritional support, temporary disability status, ad nauseum :)
What I was attempting to say, and perhaps not as eloquently as I could have was: I believe that the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, provides everyone in the U.S. equal protection under the law. All I think anyone wants is a level playing field and I believe the U.S. Constitution provides this. We should be applying and enforcing the laws as they presently exist and not be writing new law. The examples suggested by both responses to my comment can be enforced under this article.(d.wood)
The problem is not that we need to enforce the current laws. The current laws in many cases are being reinforced, but depending on who is reinforcing the laws they can be interpreted as something other than what they are. If it appears that rights are not being met withing the current laws, then we must consider other laws whcih will allow these rights to be met.
I agree in that the equal protection clause should be considered in terms of enforcing laws that protect people of the United States. However, in terms of securing or attaining a "level playing field" I believe that some groups (esp. women, children, & those with disability) should be guaranteed certain specific rights that are necessary in ensuring equality. Not that these groups deserve these specific right OVER other groups, but rather these specific rights are not applicable to other groups (i.e the example of women and right to certain nutrition standards because they are pregnant, etc).
Majority rule--minority rights: a fundamental concept of a representative government.
At the least it's complacency, at the worst it's dangerous to think that women enjoy the same level of personal security in our country that men do, i.e., the same rate of female criminal vs male victim as male criminal vs female victim regarding violent crime.
Post a Comment
<< Home