US only advanced nation refusing to sign "Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women"

Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
US only advanced nation refusing to sign "Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women"

http://www.themhnews.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=2e88b6da-451c-4a5b-8859-28af9a6b6d6a

So I always watch these science of the bible and history of the bible shows on NG and History. There's a woman on there by the name of Carol Fontaine and she's always saying things that sort of sound Atheist. So...I figured I would dig up some info on her. What I found out, however, disturbed me far more about the US view of women (surprise) and of how CBS treated her when she did not want to bash Islam like they wanted.

This says who hasn't ratified it: http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/cedaw/countries.html

The Heritage Foundation says that: "A close examination of the reports issued by U.N. committees monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) shows that these committees are pushing an agenda that counters traditional moral and social norms regarding the family, marriage, motherhood, and religion." found: http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407es.cfm

So essentially, because of the Christian view that women are less than men this now means that women shouldn't be considered equal? The US is the ONLY advanced nation who has NOT signed it. Why haven't we heard about this???

 

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hoo boy.  This is kinda

Hoo boy.  This is kinda sad really.  As much as the media wants us to believe that we have nothing in common with "Terrorist Nations" here I see that the US is in the company of Iran, Qatar, Somalia, and Sudan.  This is a travesty against our people.

 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton made a great point when she said that the greatest obstacle to the freedom of women is the bible, and I think this proves it.

"A close examination of the reports issued by U.N. committees monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) shows that these committees are pushing an agenda that counters traditional moral and social norms regarding the family, marriage, motherhood, and religion."

Seriously... traditional social norms about marriage had it used as a political tool.  The family is traditionally authoritarianly run by the man (hell I'm not married and I'll admit that my partner and I share our relationship, not treat it like a master/slave relation).  And who the hell do they think they are talking about the traditions of motherhood?  Traditionally, medical care was not good enough to ensure the health of the mother after birth.  We've been dealing with the feminization of poverty for years in this country as women are considered "traditionally" responsible for the care of the children and are thus saddled with the whole responsibility for them in divorces with fathers simply demanding enough time to teach their son his father's ways (I didn't even get this, my mother was pretty much left with me, with no child support or aid, that woman was a saint and a powerful woman).

 Why haven't we heard of this?  Because women are supposed to be quiet and learn in silence and hold no power over men [1 Timothy 2:11-12], adorn their faces in shame [1 Timothy 2:9], and accept that the man is the head of her [1 Corinthians 11:3].  Let this get out and those filthy corrupters will start thinking they are owed something other than our using them for childbirth.

 Bronze age bollocks!  Thanks for bringing this to the attention of a group that can rally against it.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


evilsmurf213
evilsmurf213's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Hi, I'm not quite sure what

Hi, I'm not quite sure what to say about this. i guess I'll just share my thoughts, cause i don't know about the (CRC) or the (CRDAW). i do however know that if it weren't for my Mother(who just passed away last Oct.) i wouldn't know how to treat a lady with respect and kindness. Take and listen to their words as if i were speaking them. It was my Mom who instilled into me and all my brothers (5 and 1 sis) that a woman has the same amount of rights as men. It is sad to learn about this, although not surprising. Suppression of women are just another form of control in this country, not only for the men who run it but for the foreign religious leader as well. One day i hope i will turn on the t.v. and not hear anything about gay rights or atheist rights, for we are all people living in the same world. Rights should never be an issue especially in this country.

Thanks to christians, i'm an athiest.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
These kind of debates

These kind of debates usually make me less than popular to either side ... because ... both sides are wrong. Please allow me to elaborate:

Regarding the above url http://tinyurl.com/2mwy2d (shortened version of the long link)

Now, I can agree with *some* of the things that this article says that Fontaine has to say. It is true that following scripture, for example, gets in the way of women's rights issues. In fact, her activism is important. My problem, though, would be with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Please note that I don't disagree with the entire document, but I do question it enough that I'm not sure that I could condone signing it. Here is a part that I have a problem with:

Convention wrote:
Article 6: "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women."

It is understandable to eliminate the trafficking of women as property, where her own freedoms are being violated. However, what many consider to be exploitation of women - what many consider to be 'trafficking women" is NOT a violation of her freedoms. For example, a prostitute in Nevada that wants to be a prostitute and is a prostitute by way of her own business is certainly not being discriminated against (per the definition given in the document, rather than the actual definition of the word 'discriminate' ). This is an aspect of the document, though, that can be corrected by clarifying such an issue.

I also find that article 10 could be considered contradictory:

Quote:

(c) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim and, in particular, by the revision of textbooks and school programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods;

(d ) The same opportunities to benefit from scholarships and other study grants;

(e) The same opportunities for access to programmes of continuing education, including adult and functional literacy programmes, particulary those aimed at reducing, at the earliest possible time, any gap in education existing between men and women;

Now, here we have a natural dilemma that comes up in women's issues and civil rights issues in general. If I want to do as c and d point out, then any given program introduced would have to be identical in nature for both men and women. However, once I introduce e, then I have made said programs not identical, and have, indeed, singled out women over men in some sense in order to benefit women facing particular issues. While I support programs that will bring women up to a social level equal to men, I recognize readily that it violates my ideas that the goal of social changes I make need to be to give men and women equal opportunities. Now, let me clarify something else for a little bit. This, in my mind, means that if I have criteria for a public safety job (like a firefighter, for example, since this example has been used in coversations I've had with others on the matter) then the criteria for the job, especially the parts that deal in safety matters, have to be exactly the same for men and women. If there is a requirement for strength that means that you have to be able to carry a certain amount of weight, then that requirement should be there, regardless of if fewer women would meet the requirement than men. The job opportunity won't be described as different to either the man or the woman, however, by nature of biology, the job would be more difficult for a woman to obtain. This leads me to the conclusion that such a requirement does not (counter to many feminist perspectives) constitute an unequal requirement for women. That would put such a requirement in line with c and d. (Later parts of the document do seem to conform to my perspective on this, but they don't eliminate the contradiction ... *sigh*)

But, there are things that need to be in line with e, that will contradict c and d directly. In many countries, the literacy of women is far below that of men, because early educational practices denied women the same opportunities as men. In order for women to 'catch up' socially, this means that there will need to be programs that will conform to e, but not be in line with c and d, because they will single out women by their very nature (therefore, not giving equal opportunities to each gender).

There's some even more direct things, though, that will have to fall into this catagory as well. We have a recent controversy over the vaccination for HPV. The laws regarding this vaccination are directed at girls. While I agree that the law should likely apply to both boys and girls, I can understand the drive to make this something that directs girls first. Because girls are the ones that get cervical cancer due to the disease HPV. That means, however, that early in the movement to protect women's health, we will be doing things that conform to e, but not to the preveious two parts. Indeed, women's and men's health issues are going to naturally fall into that catagory anyway. So how do you solve the dilemma?

The document needs something to clarify that there are acceptable places where we have to violate the ideas behind c and d where it protects the health and rights of men and women to do so.

From the same article:

Quote:
(f) The reduction of female student drop-out rates and the organization of programmes for girls and women who have left school prematurely;

This delves even farther into the same contradiction, but it also offers another ethical dilemma that has recently emerged in the gender issues debate. What if women have different natural tendencies than men towards education? If so, then it could be the case that some women will leave educational programs, on average, before men do. The jury is still out on if this is a natural tendency or not, as the last proposal to study such a thing was rejected and the man who proposed the idea was quickly fired from his job. However, I do think that this is a question worthy of academic study, and I think that, unless the premature leaving of educational options is due to some social pressure, or some law that is based in harmful discrimination (again, as described by the document, not the literal definition), then it seems unnecesary to pressure women who simply don't take options that they have open to them. If, even after making every effort towards equal social status, and acheiving the ability for every woman to have the same opportunities, there is still a difference in the number of women who persue an education and men who do, then it doesn't really seem like a glaring problem to me because the women just didn't take the opportunity that they had.

Again, though, this part of the document is going to contradict with the earlier statements, but should not necessarily be eliminated, since it does offer something that might be needed. If it is the case that things like pregnancy, for example, prevent a woman continuing her education when she would like to, then I think it is reasonable to have provisions in place that cater to such a need. Such a provision would not allow for equal treatment of men and women, simply because a man doesn't get pregnant or give birth (at least at this point in time - perhaps we could write such a provision to accomodate future technologies that might allow a man to become pregnant).

I love that article 11 comes close to being amenable to such an idea:

Quote:

2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status;

(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances;

(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities;

(d) To provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them.

3. Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary.

However, as long as men are incapeable of giving birth, it is the case that this is going to be a place where laws and regulations are not equal towards them - that is, unless we write them without gender bias now (which isn't a bad idea).

From article 12:

Quote:
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.

I see this section as actually being unnecessary because I realize that adequate public health care for all would solve this problem, and there would be no need to have it be gender-specific at all.

Now, the quotes I have presented are as the document was presented to the UN in 1981. I'm unsure of how socio-cultural memes may have played a role in some of what I have pointed out. Also, I could probably discuss some of this in more detail, however, I'm writing this on the fly, so this is what happens when I do such.

Moving on to the main part of the post, heh:

Quote:
So I always watch these science of the bible and history of the bible shows on NG and History. There's a woman on there by the name of Carol Fontaine and she's always saying things that sort of sound Atheist. So...I figured I would dig up some info on her. What I found out, however, disturbed me far more about the US view of women (surprise) and of how CBS treated her when she did not want to bash Islam like they wanted.

She does seem like a fascinating lady, so thanks for pointing her out. I will have to do some more reading on her later, I think. This quote from the article you posted from Mount Holyoke News struck me as interesting, though:

Quote:
The U.N. still has not consolidated their efforts to help raise women worldwide to an equal status with their male counterparts. The Women's UN Report Program and Network functions on the international as well as the local level through their representative on the Human Rights Council. The tension between these levels is shocking. "Have you got a suit you can wear to a mass gravesite and then to a governor's cocktail party?" Fontaine asked. She recommends that aspiring activists work from the bottom up, and she left her audience with these words of wisdom: "You have to honor yourselves as women. You have to stay safe, work hard, and don't throw it all away, because the world needs you."

This is one aspect where I part ways with many feminists. Unless it is mandated by law or directly enforced requirement that women's attire be different at such events, then I don't see the latter point to even be relevant to the fight for equality. Though I don't even own clothes that I would want to wear to either type of event, I don't imagine myself as wanting clothes that would suit both events. To me, such a point is akin to me saying of men, "do you have a suit you can wear to a football game AND to your wedding?" Indeed, a man may or may not have something they consider fitting - but if they didn't, how does that speak anything at all to their equality or lack thereof to another gender? It certainly says nothing that pertains to the closing quote, which is something that applies to both men and women.

Quote:
This says who hasn't ratified it: http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/cedaw/countries.html

I'm actually mixed on the notion of if I would want something like that signed or not. I suppose that if I had no choice of having the things that I thought relevant adjusted, then I might support it simply due to it being better than the current system, but I would only do so with the acknowledgement (and probably voiciferous stance) that the document is still flawed and needs work, that it isn't necessarily adequate to meet its own goals.

Quote:
The Heritage Foundation says that: "A close examination of the reports issued by U.N. committees monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) shows that these committees are pushing an agenda that counters traditional moral and social norms regarding the family, marriage, motherhood, and religion." found: http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407es.cfm

I pretty much agree that the guy who wrote that is wrong - I don't think I need to elaborate on it. However, as with many cases, you can learn something about the opposition, and how to better address your own stances on things by thoroughly reading what they have to say ... and occasionally, you may come across gems like this:

from the above link wrote:
And they have criticized conscientious objection clauses in laws for doctors that object to abortion.

I actually think that some conscientious objector clauses are fine. I think that doctors have a right to be against abortion, and to make statements against abortions. However, I think that women deserve to be educated on their options, and so I think that the solution is to educate women on their options and to encourage companies that depend on these doctors (and pharmacists, as is a current issue here in the US regarding birth control pills and plan B), to either have the option not to hire these conscientious objectors for the sake of their business, or, since it is their duty to protect and facilitate one's path to better health, to make open statements about what is available in their stores. This means that while they have the right to hold what options they wish for their customers, that the customer can be protected from the stance of the objector, and will still have options to go to a place that is willing to help her reach her reproductive goals. So the only objector clauses that I think need to be obliterated are those that violate a woman's rights directly and/or violate the rights of the objector (both of which sometimes happen in the US).

Quote:
So essentially, because of the Christian view that women are less than men this now means that women shouldn't be considered equal? The US is the ONLY advanced nation who has NOT signed it. Why haven't we heard about this???

Well, since this appeared in the 1970s and '80s, I wouldn't exactly expect it to be on the front page of the news at the moment. However, it is mentioned in a few books that I've read, including, as I recall, "Manifesta" by Baumgardner and Richards and possibly "Feminist Theory" by Donovan (but I'm unsure, I think I have a vague recollection of something like this mentioned there).

I will say, though, that while the christian view does play a large role here, it is not *just* the christian view that we work against. We end up with a kind of cultural well that we become trapped in that even as we begin to eliminate barriers put up by the christian religion, we're still likely to encounter barriers put up by people who hold their stances simply due to a cultural norm that they don't have a religious basis for.

Anyways ... that's my take on the matter ...


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Wow. I'm impressed. I

Wow. I'm impressed. I didn't think anyone really bothered to read the whole thing. I wish I could add something to what you so eloquently wrote...but I don't. I agree with you on nearly everything you pointed out.

I think it should be up to a woman to choose if she wants to participate in prostitution or not but I understand why other countries need this. Prostitution and human trafficking is a huge problem and I'm guessing that's the reason for it.

I also agree that a lot of times in order to be "equal" you first have to be "unequal." I understand both sides but sometimes in order to be equal you have to pay attention to that which had been unequal for so long prior. The question is at what point does one stop the "unequal" and how does one know what the point of equal really is?

I also agree, and sometimes find it hugely ironic and somewhat sad, that as women fighting for equal rights there is so much focus on gender related issues that were nothing more than social and gender codes selected by the masculine side of society or by those who don't see how they themselves are perpetuating the inequality between genders. Does that make people oblivious, simply irresponsible or self-hating feminists? That probably depends on who you ask.

I don't disagree that if a doctor has a problem with a medical service that they shouldn't be forced to do it, however, I firmly believe that they have a responsibility of informing their patients of all of their options and they should not be allowed to use bogus information to coherce patients. With this, I believe that facilities should provide the medical facts and if the patient wants to hear their "religious" advice or personal opinions, they should request it. Otherwise, I see it as nothing more than smoke-screening real-life issues with religion.

I understand that religion has formed much of the gender roles that we still deal with today. While I agree with you that some changes should be made to this document, I still believe it sets a low bar that the United States is weak on women's rights and as a supposed leader of the free world...you'd think we'd want to jump on that to set an example. So changes, yes, but ignoring it for the reasoning that the Heritage Foundation gave? Absolutely not.

Thanks for taking the time to post on this!

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Thank you very much for the

Thank you very much for the compliments - I rarely find that people agree with me on these things, so it is refreshing to find someone agreeing and able to understand my points of view. Your comments are very much appreciated.

 As to your question on at what point we go from unequal to equal laws, well, I think that will fit under the clause of when it protects ones rights or health. That clause should be expected to work both ways. Once something approaches a point where it could begin violating the other gender, then it is the case that something needs adjusted. Some things can be written and created, though, so that they will naturally level off when the genders have reached some semblance of equality. I think some of the proposals for educating women in afghanistan actually approached such, although many of said plants were struck down or ignored. Some of the plans were simply to even out the numbers of girls able to go to school by creating schools based on both demand and with the goal to make as many girls schools as there were boy's schools. Based on information on the social environment, it was pretty much deemd unsafe to try and just bring the girls into the boys' schools, so the plans were written in a way that would just add girls' schools, and then later on down the road they would continue to monitor the area to see when there was a decent time to begin merging the schools so that they could be co-ed. I think many issues where there is the need for something to help level out the playing field, so to speak, could be addressed in a similar manner.

 I try not to make generalizations about people who get trapped into facilitating sexual social problems. I don't think that people are necesarily, "self-hating" or anything when they do such, I think they simply form a bond with particular ideas and neglect any critical thinking in regards to it.

Again, thank you for the compliments! I'm fairly interested in issues like this, actually, and am occasionally motivated to write on them. I do appreciate the new info as well. Smiling