Similarities Between Cultural Relativist And Feminism

“Women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.” On September 5, 1995, 180 countries met in Beijing, China for the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women Plenary Session listening to Hillary Clinton’s speech on women’s rights. (Clinton, 1995) Clinton spoke powerfully and bravely, in a communist country with a widespread maltreatment of women. The speech addressed governments and humans rights organizations, addressing problems that every country faced concerning the freedom of women. She united the audience in connecting the topic on an international level, and spoke urgently, using ethos, pathos, and logos. Beginning the speech, she is very gracious, which portrays her likability. This was a very influential, as it was one of the first well received speeches of its time given in this communist country trying to give a voice to women.

This essay will outline the position of feminists and cultural relativists and demonstrate the similarities between them, namely the common ground of human rights discourse. It is my contention that both can work together to make inclusive changes to the way they interpret and understand the human rights violations of women and work to assure the protection of women’s human rights. This essay will suggest that there is enough common ground between these two approaches to provide a solid foundation where feminists and cultural relativists can combine their insights to create a more inclusive, adaptable critique of the mainstream international human rights discourse. Working together, they can have a greater impact on international human rights discourse and the actualization of the human rights of

Ethnocentrism according to The Essence of Anthropology is “a way of viewing other cultures in relation to one’s own in the belief that the familiar sets a universal standard of what is proper or correct”. Throughout Cultural Relativism and Universal Rights the author Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban expresses her thoughts on what anthropologist can do to protect human rights within the cultures they study without considering ethnocentrism, holistic perspectives, and being culture-bound. Overall Fluehr-Lobban does not do a good job at expressing her ideas on how anthropologist can help protect human rights and I found myself not agreeing with her statements.

Gender discrimination and violence against women were not part of the Human Rights Agenda until the 1990s when feminists began to push for this change (p84/book). One of the slogans of their campaign was that “Women’s Rights

All of Richard Rorty – Human Rights, Rationality and Sentimentality – Fernando Tesón – International Human Rights and Cultural Relativism – and Charles Taylor – A World Consensus on Human Rights? – believe or concede to some degree that the notion of what Taylor defines as descriptive relativism is one that accurately describes the varied realities of individuals in differing cultures; that there exists in the world some measure of diversity of culture. In their respective thought processes that follow from that point, however, the three thinkers diverge considerably.

In the first reading, “Women’s Studies and Transnational Feminism,” the author discusses how beneficial it would be to have a global perspective from women all around the world and their personal stories. It would bring greater change if women’s stories weren’t only heard mainly from the U.S, but rather told by international women about their experience with oppression and way of living. According to the author the viewpoint of all the women globally is described as “transnational”, a way of challenging current basic understandings of supposed everyday women (specifically western women) and fighting to reconstruct this system to become an advantage to other women around the world. Rather than focusing on “global feminism” which doesn’t

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights possesses thirty total laws of which each individual living on this Earth has a right to have. However, all throughout history, those specific rights have been violated by others. The “Right to Equality”, the “Freedom from Discrimination”, the “Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment”, and the rest, are contravened daily. All of these rights are supposedly protected by the thirtieth right: “No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights”. Yet, this law is the most disobeyed in the world. Our human rights are taken away from us all the time; especially in the United States and Afghanistan. White dominance during the Civil Rights movement and the unjust rule of the Taliban are two of the biggest violators of the final right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

some women's activist thinkers battle that globalization has empowered ladies to assert their human rights by making "new spaces, establishments and talk where the idea of all inclusive human rights is an intense justificatory standard" (Walby 2002). Others credit globalization for the rise of new universal non-legislative associations and women's activist social developments, which have fortified the overall development for ladies' human rights (Robinson, 2003). The "ladies' rights and human rights" development has utilized the dialect of human rights to scrutinize numerous attacks on ladies' respect that were already thought to be normal or unavoidable. For example, the development has demonstrated that misuse in the private circle, for example,

This UN declaration seeks to bring together everyone as one collective family, but ignores the fact that each culture has the right to make their own set of rules. Due to the lack of each culture being able to confirm their own culture and their own rules, an ethical relativist would disagree with the list. Instead they would argue that “what seems rights for one culture is right for that culture” (Rosenstand, p.125).

Relativism and Universalism is the debate regarding the human rights source and applicability. Human rights are the rights that the human claims as being human, in accordance to the societal and cultural norms. While the former believes the rights are defined by the culture; the latter opines they are universal to humans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Relativist argues that, is based on the western history and thus does not adhere to diverse culture globally prevalent and rather is pretentious towards culture. Therefore they doubt the relevance of the post conflict ad-hoc tribunal for Rawanda and the International Criminal Court which are based of notion of Universalism.

capacity is not conceded by all cultures.” It is important to note the significant influence culture has on women’s rights issues. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) raised a variety of questions dealing with the inference of the term “universal.” It infers that the declaration is meant to represent human rights in all countries, including those that are non-Western with highly complex cultures and societies. By creating this agreement and applying it as universal it has the “contradictory effect of undermining communities’ autonomous rights to enjoy their own culture.” Additionally, in looking at historic actions of Western countries Anthropologists were concerned that the UDHR was a “series of attempts by the West to impose its values on other societies.” This can very well be the case because of the many debates that occurred surrounding women’s rights and female genital mutilation practices. Many criticized Western scholars claiming that they could not “legitimately criticize ‘traditional’ practices that seemed to violate women’s rights.” The context in which cultural practices are birthed are placed within the social construct of the origin society. One cannot possibly understand the human rights implications of another cultures if they don’t understand the culture as a participant. Also, there

This article examines the interaction of feminist theories and international human rights discourses as detailed in UN documents. The UN has advanced women’s rights by introducing a new human rights discourse, and by offering a place for interaction among women from different parts of the world. Women have used these opportunities from the UN to push several different feminist theoretical frameworks. The author examines the interaction of these various feminist. theories. She is drawing attention to the gap between theory and praxis. She discusses how feminism has changed throughout the last 50 years . The United Nations is informed by the contemporary liberal feminist movement. When you treat power as a property, the approach ignores the differences of status and power. The moto some st important thing to get from this is that is assumes that people of a marginalized group can gain access to some sources of power, the entire group has the same access. She says that improvements in policy on some indicators may help close the gender gap, but would not empower the majority of women, because those policies ignore the diversity of women, such as capitalism, race and class systems, and international power differentials.

Human rights are a strong point of contention in the context of ethics and global politics. This is due to the vast diversity of perspectives that exist within the international world system – which makes it increasingly to difficult to define a truly global conception of human rights today. At the core of human rights perspectives is the suggestion that there should be a ‘basic’ notion of universal human rights. However, this is widely contested. In this essay I will critically interpret the notion of human rights universality in the contemporary realm of global politics. Observing the merits and downfalls of a universal notion of human rights, I will open the concept to challenge by grappling with the definition of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ human rights. In diverse world system characterized by transnational cooperation I will address the fundamental question: is there a human ‘right to politics’, or more precisely, do universal human rights require democracy? And more importantly, can universal human rights be upheld in the international world system? In conclusion, I suggest that there is in fact a universal notion of human rights, but whether or not it can be realised in the context of the diverse and dynamic world system is questionable.

Universality Vs. Relativity The conflict between Universal Human rights Doctrine and cultural relativism is found from the very beginning of adoption of Universal Human Right Doctrine in 1948. But this conflict takes a new turn when we talk about the human being’s security of life. Conflicting situation always endangers the human security. Before analysing this main fact, it is imperative to know that what is meant by ‘universality’ and ‘relativity’ in the concept of ‘universal human rights’ and ‘cultural relativism’.

Feminism is a figure of social philosophy and radical movement predominantly centered on and determined by the familiarities of womenfolk. Whereas, commonly delivering an evaluation of social interactions, countless advocates of feminism likewise, concentrate on studying gender discrimination and the advancement of women's privileges, benefits and problems. Feminism is the idea that women must have financial, social and political egalitarianism with men. This concept signifies a political movement that helps to increase equivalence within a masculine and feminine relationship. In a heterosexual relationship, both the male role and the female role ought to be identical. Equivalent in various ways; they need to trust one another, take on the same responsibilities, listen and admire one another.