Sex-selective abortion : Gender, culture and Dutch public policy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Culture, Tolerance and Gender: A Contribution from the Netherlands
The European Journal of Women's Studies, 2003
Defenders of multiculturalism have been recently criticized for failing to address gender inequality in minority cultures. Multiculturalism would seem incompatible with a commitment to feminism. This article discusses two empirical cases that pose a problem for public policy in the Netherlands: a conflict over wearing headscarves (hijab) and requests for surgical hymen repair. These cases evoke widespread public controversy, in part because they are presumed to express or accommodate traditions in violation of women's rights and thus raise the question of tolerance. While recognizing the potential discrepancies between feminism and multiculturalism, the author argues that committed feminists can be multiculturalists as well, and that good feminism might well require acts of multiculturalism. In addition, she advocates a contextual approach to tolerance. Her argument is that general justice arguments are too indeterminate to make for good judgement in concrete cases. The national political culture and institutional setting in which multicultural conflicts take place should be considered as morally relevant factors and co-determine our moral considerations. The dispute over feminism and multiculturalism cannot be settled in abstracto. Using a contextual approach, the author argues that wearing a headscarf and hymen repair are justifiable and consonant with feminist concerns in the Dutch educational and medical contexts.
European Journal of Women's Studies, 2003
Defenders of multiculturalism have been recently criticized for failing to address gender inequality in minority cultures. Multiculturalism would seem incompatible with a commitment to feminism. This article discusses two empirical cases that pose a problem for public policy in the Netherlands: a conflict over wearing headscarves (hijab) and requests for surgical hymen repair. These cases evoke widespread public controversy, in part because they are presumed to express or accommodate traditions in violation of women's rights and thus raise the question of tolerance. While recognizing the potential discrepancies between feminism and multiculturalism, the author argues that committed feminists can be multiculturalists as well, and that good feminism might well require acts of multiculturalism. In addition, she advocates a contextual approach to tolerance. Her argument is that general justice arguments are too indeterminate to make for good judgement in concrete cases. The national political culture and institutional setting in which multicultural conflicts take place should be considered as morally relevant factors and co-determine our moral considerations. The dispute over feminism and multiculturalism cannot be settled in abstracto. Using a contextual approach, the author argues that wearing a headscarf and hymen repair are justifiable and consonant with feminist concerns in the Dutch educational and medical contexts.
Feminist Ethics, Autonomy and the Politics of Multiculturalism
Feminist Theory, 2003
Should the liberal state accommodate the cultural traditions of minority groups even if these traditions infringe upon the rights of women? This article discusses two empirical cases that pose just this problem for public policy in the Netherlands: requests for surgical reconstruction of the hymen and gender-selective abortion. While hymen reconstruction is linked to a cultural norm that young women, but not young men, remain virgins until marriage, sex-selective abortion is linked to a cultural preference for sons. The autonomy of women is at issue in these cases in two ways: the traditions limit their autonomy, yet it is the women who demand the medical intervention. The cases illustrate the complexities of women's agency under oppressive social conditions. The author develops a moral argument concerning these two cases that understands the women in question as moral agents, while taking into account these complexities. The article does not pit multicultural and feminist concerns against each other. Instead, it is argued that good feminism may well require acts of multiculturalism. It is not desirable, so it is argued, to restrict access to abortion or to ban hymen repair.
PDF-PowerPoint presentation of the talk I gave on Thursday, 1st February, at the III Braga Colloquium in the History of Moral and Political Philosophy, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 1st – 2nd February 2018, Theme: Radicalism and Compromise Abstract Is multiculturalism bad for women? Radicalism and compromise on multiculturalism, group-rights, forms of liberalism and compatibilities between cultures In my contribution, whose title refer to the article of Susan Moller Okin „Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?“ , I would like to deal with different position on multiculturalism expressing opinions in favour or against the compatibility of multiculturalism with individual rights and, likewise, expressing opinions whether rights must be conceded only to individuals or whether groups too should be received particular rights. Radical position for or against multiculturalism and its implications are accompanied by more moderate positions. For my investigation I will refer mainly, besides the mentioned study, of Susan Moller Okin to the following studies: Doriane L. Coleman’s “Individualizing Justice through Multiculturalism: The Liberalsʼ Dilemma”, Seyla Benhabib’s “The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in the Global Era”, Will Kymlicka’s “Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights” and “Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity”, Ronald Dworkin’s “Liberalism”, Charles Taylor’s, “The Politics of Recognition”, Chandran Kukathas’ “Cultural Toleration”; Brian Barry’s “Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism”. The analysis von Moller Okin will explain which problems are represented by the integration, into a liberal society, of illiberal cultures for the rights of women: the study will offer us a first instrument in order to understand which problems every theory of integration will have to solve, if a correct integration between different groups in the same society is to be reached. The analysis of Coleman will introduce us in the interesting problem of the cultural defences and of the problems that the strategy of the cultural defences poses for the American and not only the American tribunals: Is a pluralistic interpretation of the law in a right state to be accepted, as those who sustain cultural defences want to, or is a pluralistic interpretation of the law to be refused? The analysis of Coleman gives us highly valuable elements in order to understand the problems posed by some interpretation of multiculturalism for the equal protection clause. The comparison between different form of interpretations of liberalism in Dworkin, Taylor, Kukathas and Barry will give us the possibility of discussing form of radicalism in the interpretation of liberalism: for instance, Barry’s radical interpretation of liberalism as a theory defending the autonomy of the person strongly opposes Kukathas likewise radical interpretation of liberalism as meaning tolerance: Barry excludes every form of diminution of individual liberty and of diminution of protection of the individual liberty in his interpretation of liberalism and in the connected duty assigned to the state as to the protection of the fundamental rights of the individuals, whereas Kukathas considers the state as only being an aggregation between groups without having, therefore, any authority of coercion in relation to the groups: since liberalism is tolerance, the rules holding in the different groups ought in the opinion of Kukathas to be tolerated, even if these rule are oppressive, intolerant and illiberal for the members of the group itself. The opposition between Dworkin and Taylor will introduce us into the opposition between a procedural and a substantive interpretation of liberalism. Finally, Kymlicka’s rather moderate liberal theory of group rights, on the basis of which the acknowledgment of rights to groups and, therefore, not only reserved to individuals is to be interpreted as an extension and natural development of the liberal tradition, will be compared with the strong and radical criticism expressed by Barry in relation to every form of group rights. My opinion will be that liberalism has to be interpreted as a theory of autonomy and of defence of the autonomy of the individuals. The primacy ought to be done to individual and to the defence of the individuals against groups. Notwithstanding, I believe that group rights are indispensable in a geopolitical dimension in order to protect minority groups from abuse perpetrated by majority groups.
Guest editorialThe rights of women and the crisis of multiculturalism
Ethnicities, 2008
Across Europe, the discourse and practices of multiculturalism are in crisis. Politicians compete to stress the importance of a strong sense of national identity and belonging, and have come to regard diversity as a problem rather than a resource. The language of integration-once perceived by many as objectionably close to assimilation-increasingly dominates debate. Newspaper articles call on immigrants to confirm that they have opted for the values of their host society, while governments insist on applicants for citizenship undergoing courses in the national language and what are said to be the values of the host country. Multiculturalism-never as powerful a force in European politics as its critics have suggested-has come to be associated with ethnic ghettos and people living 'parallel lives'. Multiculturalism was attacked from the right almost from its inception, and was repudiated by segments of the left for allegedly burying the inequalities of race in vague celebrations of cultural difference. It was never adopted as official policy in any part of Europe, though Belgium has long pursued what might be described as policies of multiculturalism in relation to its major language groups, and Norway, Sweden, and Finland have increasingly recognized the rights of the indigenous Sami people, most notably with the creation of a Sami Parliament in Norway. In France, however, multiculturalism was rejected pretty much out of hand as at odds with republican principles; 1 in Germany, as at odds with a predominantly ethnicized conception of citizenship; while in Italy or Spain, multiculturalism barely figured in either popular or political discourse until the last few years. In those countries most commonly cited as exemplars of multicultural
The rights of women and the crisis of multiculturalism (Guest editorial)
Across Europe, the discourse and practices of multiculturalism are in crisis. Politicians compete to stress the importance of a strong sense of national identity and belonging, and have come to regard diversity as a problem rather than a resource. The language of integration – once perceived by many as objectionably close to assimilation – increasingly dominates debate. Newspaper articles call on immigrants to confirm that they have opted for the values of their host society, while governments insist on applicants for citizenship undergoing courses in the national language and what are said to be the values of the host country. Multiculturalism – never as powerful a force in European politics as its critics have suggested – has come to be associated with ethnic ghettos and people living ‘parallel lives’. Multiculturalism was attacked from the right almost from its inception, and was repudiated by segments of the left for allegedly burying the inequalities of race in vague celebrations of cultural difference. It was never adopted as official policy in any part of Europe, though Belgium has long pursued what might be described as policies of multiculturalism in relation to its major language groups, and Norway, Sweden, and Finland have increasingly recognized the rights of the indigenous Sami people, most notably with the creation of a Sami Parliament in Norway. In France, however, multiculturalism was rejected pretty much out of hand as at odds with republican principles;1 in Germany, as at odds with a predominantly ethnicized conception of citizenship; while in Italy or Spain, multiculturalism barely figured in either popular or political discourse until the last few years. In those countries most commonly cited as exemplars of multicultural G U E S T E D I T O R I A L
Politics & Gender, 2009
I use the term 'cultural groups' to cover a broad range of groups whose members share an identity based on ethnic, linguistic, racial, or religious characteristics, and for whom these aspects strongly shape the self-and ascriptive identiWcation of individual members. Such collectivities are sometimes referred to as 'encompassing groups' or 'societal cultures' to indicate that they may shape not only the self-understandings of members but also their community contexts, opportunities, life choices, and so forth. 2 David Scott, 'Culture in Political Theory', Political Theory, 31/1 (2003), 92-115, p. 111. 3 The descriptor 'minority' refers here to the social and legal status of particular practices, not to whether they are practiced by few or many. This distinction is important because in some states, such as South Africa, 'minority' practices-for example, those concerning customary marriage-may actually be practiced by a majority of the population. I do not mean to suggest 4 See Leslie Green, 'Internal Minorities and their Rights' , in Group Rights, ed. Judith Baker (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), and Minorities Within Minorities: Equality, Rights and Diversity, eds. Avigail Eisenberg and JeV Spinner-Halev (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 5 The term 'nonliberal' is usually used by political theorists to refer to groups or practices that restrict individual liberty in very pronounced ways, and so risk violating liberal norms. I use the term similarly in this book, but also include communities and customs that stipulate rigid social hierarchies or prescribe sharply diVerentiated gender roles for men and women.