Journal Reviewed:
Reitman, Oonagh. "Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes?." 1997, 100-114.
This journal article, “Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes?” by Oonagh Reitman seeks to rouse discussion about the similarities between two critiques of universal human rights: cultural relativists and feminists, despite the antagonistic position both groups tend to take against each other. In the beginning, he lays out the basis of critique of international human rights by each camp. Cultural relativists argue that the universal human rights which are earned simply ‘by virtue of being human’ (Donnelly in Reitman 1997, 100) are insensitive to the diversity of culture. Feminists, on the other hand, criticize that universal human rights guarantee only men’s rights and that ‘gender equality and freedom from discrimination for women is given a low priority in the international arena’ (Reitman 1997, 100).
Reitman then examines the combative relationship between the two groups. Cultural relativists believe feminists are ‘protecting a Western notion of
…show more content…
Feminists are accused of taking the perspective of a woman who is a product of Western ideology. Which is to say that feminists ‘assume that all women have similar attributes and experiences and ignore the impact of other variables such as race, class, wealth, and sexual preferences on the position of women’(Chalesworth in Nayak 2013, 86). That in doing so, they have effectively excluded other women of different culture, class, and religion. What I would like to emphasize here is that in pursuing equality, feminists have become the very ‘”elite” they criticizes. Feminists’ claims for human rights are Western based, as simultaneously feminists are claiming that human rights are
We cannot deny the imperfection of the world today; poverty, violence, lack of education, and the general overwhelming deficiency of basic daily necessities are among some of the most troubling issues on the agenda. By carefully selecting our critical lens, we can gather that there are many aspects of today’s issues where we can focus our attention and begin the quest for solutions to these pervasive problems. Authors Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn (2009) utilize their book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide to emphasize the particular struggle of women in the world today and how by addressing three particular abuses of sex trafficking and forced prostitution, gender-based violence (including honor killings and mass rape), and maternal mortality, we may begin “unlocking an incipient women’s movement to emancipate women and fight global poverty” (p. xxii). However, we must first understand the difficulty of addressing such complex issues by a proposing a “one-size fits all” solution and take into consideration the varying feminist perspectives that currently contemplate the oppression of women in societies around the world. To be able to critically digest Kristof and WuDunn’s book we must explore the types of stories and evidence included and how they’re presented, and the generalized theories behind the insight and solutions regarding the women in need around the world. The authors alienate their audience by ignoring the complexity of building a singular feminist movement. Kristof and WuDunn’s book Half the Sky further contributes to the oppression of women because they objectify Third World women by portraying them as victims in need of outside rescue and suggest that an overarching solution...
Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 5( 1998)
Academic discourse is the means by which new and old theories may be applied to a topic in order to reach a better understanding or challenge a notion raised within the field. It is through discussing and analyzing these concepts that individual voices may be applied to an academic community, allowing for a wider lens of thought to be picked up and further discussed. Grewal participates in this discourse in her article “'Women's Rights as Human Rights': Feminist Practices, Global Feminism, and Human Rights Regimes in Transnationality”. This paper shall analyze and discuss how Grewal applies previous theoretical concepts related to feminist discourse in order to offer a Transnationalist Feminist critique to the Global Feminist notion of Women's Rights as Human Rights.
“The root of the word “oppression” is the element “press”… Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so elated to each other that jointly the restrain, restrict or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility” (Frye, 84-85). Oppression is something felt by many different social groups in societies around the world. The feminist movement is one that sets out to dismantle sexist oppression. Marilyn Frye describes an oppression that she believes is common to all women despite ethnic or racial differences. Kimberlé Crenshaw, in her Tedtalk, however, argues that there is a common experience between females of different social groups due to certain constructs in society, and Audre Lorde discusses how crucial it
The most related terms when women’s right is brought up are feminism and feminist. A feminist, by definition, is someone the fights for feminism. The definition of feminism, one the other hand, is very complex. Throughout history, the word has continuously had bad images and connotations thrown its wa...
To discuss the relationship between ‘Western Feminism’ and ‘International Feminisms’ we must first create clear definitions of what each term means, implies, and advocates for. Far too often the relationship between the two paradigms has been framed in the traditional framework of
Sandoval theory is influential within second wave feminism. The reasoning behind this article is to provide a framework for theorizing about oppositional activity and consciousness in the United States in the post-modern world (Sandoval, 1991). Primarily, interested in race, class, and culture third world feminist expand on the male/female division. Sandoval credits Louis Althusser for the use of his theory of ideology. Much of her article incorporates influential authors that we have previous discussed in our discussion including Sojourner Truth, bell hooks, and Barbara Christian. She first introduces the concept of hegemonic feminism by discussing the different periods in history: 1. Liberal: women are “as fully human as men” 2. Marxist: “women are different from men” 3. Cultural/radical: “women are superior” (Sandoval, 2001). She later argues that oppositional consciousness is topographical rather than typological. According to Sandoval, there are four cateofries that fit well into the hegemonic frame: equal rights, revolutionary, supremacist, separatist. Yet they add, differential to act as “the mechanism that permits the driver to select, engage, and disengage gears in a system for the transmission of power (Sandoval,
In her essay, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Chandra Talpade Mohanty explores the simplified construction of the “third-world woman” in hegemonic feminist discourses. In contrast, in her essay “US Third-World Feminism: The Theory and Method of Oppositional Consciousness in the Postmodern World,” Chela Sandoval specifically analyzes “US third-world feminism” and how it is the model for not only oppositional political activity, but also consciousness in the United States and how this has not been recognized by hegemonic “western” feminist discourses (). While Mohanty and Sandoval are analyzing and critiquing gender and gender politics, Mohanty is specifically focused on the simplified portrayal in “western” feminist discourses of “third world women” as victims, and Sandoval examines an oppositional mode of consciousness, which she defines as “differential consciousness” and how it is employed by “US third world feminism.” Both authors deconstruct gendered bodies of knowledge with an emphasis on the deconstruction of power, race, and colonialism. It is the deconstruction of these gendered bodies of knowledge that this essay will specifically analyze, as well as the depiction of what each author argues is missing from present discourses on gender, and finally, what they believe would be a better way to analyze gender discourses in a postmodern world. (maybe add another similar point, how western feminists are trying to portray “third-world women” and their motivation behind this act)
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
Judith Butler describes the political reasons behind many feminists’ insistence on defining ‘woman. ' The political system we have had in the West needs representation of women to spread visibility and legitimize women’s issues in politics (I, 2). To achieve this representation, feminists had to create a language that defines ‘woman. ' Conversely, as Butler discusses, trying to define ‘woman’ poses problems of misrepresentation (I, 2). Some feminists’ assert that they are defining women merely as a political strategy; however, Butler says, even for strategic reasons, there are consequences to defining ‘woman’ (I, 6). Western feminists relied on universalizing not just the word ‘woman, ' but the patriarchy as well; women in countries where they suffer many oppressions gave Western feminists a legitimacy in politics to act urgently against misogyny (I, 5). Butler states that representation should not be the only method to political action; “identity of the feminist subject ought not to be the foundation of feminist politics” (I, 8). She calls feminists to break away from identity politics; to break free from attempting to define ‘woman’ (1, 7).
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
Feminist political ideology focuses on understanding and changing political philosophies for the betterment of women. Studying how the philosophies are constructed and what makes them unjust, this field constantly generates new ideas on how these philosophies need to be fundamentally reconstructed. Liberal feminism, for example, was built around promoting economic and political equality for women. By arguing the older concepts of the split between public and private realms as a way to politically protect male domination of women as “natural”, and ideas about a women’s place in the household, came evidence that supported legal cases leading “to the criminalization in the United States of spousal rape” (qtd. in McAfee). Another completely different approach is radical feminism, which advocates a separation from the whole system, perceiving that the sexual relations between male and female as the basis of gender inequality and female subordination (qtd. in McAfee). Democratic femin...
Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell. Political Theory. 27 (6), 84. [online] Available from: [Accessed 28 February 2011]
Modern-day feminism is no longer about equality but more about superiority. Today, many feminists go around stating there isn’t a need for men, women can survive on their own, and that women are better than men. As Saira Khan states in her article on Spiked, “modern-day feminists engage in man-bashing rather than dignified demands for equality.” (Khan 1). It just shows how feminists would rather take their anger out on men rather than realize we a...