Philosopher views
RELATIVISM HURTS WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
RELATIVISM HURTS WOMEN’S RIGHTS1. REJECT RELATIVISM TO LIBERATE WOMEN Martha C. Nussbaum, professor of law and ethics, University of Chicago School of Law, IDAHO LAW REVIEW, vol. 36, 2000, pp. 382-3. But when feminists appeal to notions of equality and liberty - even when those notions are actually included in the constitutions of the nations in which they live, as they are, for example, in the Indian Constitution - they are frequently accused of Westernizing and of insufficient respect for their own cultures, as if there had been no human suffering, no reasons for discontent, and no criticism before aliens invaded the peaceful landscape. We should ask whose interests are served by this nostalgic image of a happy harmonious culture, and whose resistance and misery are being effaced. Describing her mother's difficult life, Indian feminist philosopher Uma Narayan writes, "One thing I want to say to all who would dismiss my feminist criticisms of my culture, using my 'Westernization' as a lash, is that my mother's pain too has rustled among the pages of all those books I have read that partly constitute my 'Westernization,' and has crept into all the suitcases I have ever packed for my several exiles." This same pain is evident in the united voice of protest that has emerged from international women's meetings such as those in Vienna and Beijing, where a remarkable degree of agreement has been found across cultures concerning fundamental rights for women. 2. RELATIVISM ARGUMENTS ARE USED TO KEEP WOMEN DOWN Martha C. Nussbaum, professor of law and ethics, University of Chicago School of Law, IDAHO LAW REVIEW, vol. 36, 2000, p. 387. Even when women appear to be satisfied with such customs, we should probe more deeply. If someone who has no property rights under the law, who has had no formal education, who has no legal right of divorce, who will very likely be beaten if she seeks employment outside the home, says that she endorses traditions of modesty, purity, and self-abnegation, it is not clear that we should consider this the last word on the matter (as Chapter 2 will argue). Women's development groups typically encounter resistance initially, because women are afraid that change will make things worse. A group of women I met in a desert area of Andhra Pradesh, about ninety minutes by jeep from Mahabubnagar, told me that they had initially resisted participating in the government project, called Mahila Samakhya, aimed at the construction of women's collectives. They thought that it would be a waste of time, changing nothing; and they were afraid that their husbands would react harshly, because the husbands initially told them that the collectives were just an excuse to spend time talking and not working. But over time they began to see that many advantages could be gained by collective discussion and action: now they get the health visitor to come more regularly, they demand that the teacher show up. Men welcome these changes too, and they gain new respect for their wives, seeing them articulating their demands with clarity and winning concessions from local government. Traditions of deference that once seemed good have quickly ceased to seem so.
Martha C. Nussbaum, professor of law and ethics, University of Chicago School of Law, IDAHO LAW REVIEW, vol. 36, 2000, p. 391. We should also remember that the equation of the entirety of a culture with old or change-resistant elements is frequently a ploy of imperialism and chauvinism. The British in India harped continually on elements of Indian culture that they could easily portray as retrograde; they sought to identify these as "Indian culture," and critical values (especially those favoring women's progress) as British importations. Historically this was untrue; but it served in the minds of many to justify domination. At the same time, the British actively promoted antiscientific elements in Indian culture in order to prevent a development of science and technology in India that would threaten their continued hegemony. As Nehru was later to put it, the British encouraged "the disruptive, obscurantist, reactionary, sectarian, and opportunist elements in the country." It would be a grave mistake on the part of the foreign observer to endorse this British construction as the way things are concerning what is "Indian." FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT Of all the former presidents the United States has seen leave office in the past 100 years, perhaps none (even including Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton) has inspired such virulent criticism and simultaneously vociferous defense as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, popularly known as FDR. The architect of the New Deal, the charming and affable voice behind the Fireside Chats, the first president to truly take his case directly to the people, FDR is feted by liberals and reviled by conservatives to this day -- not a bad record for a man who left office nearly 70 years ago. Why the hatred from the right wing? After all, Roosevelt isn’t just the man who pulled the country out of the Great Depression, he was perhaps the living embodiment of that “rugged individualism” and “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” stuff that conservatives like to bluster about. Debilitated by a youthful bout with polio, FDR nevertheless rose to great heights as a statesman. He was elected to an unprecedented four terms. He passed important legislation, and was generally beloved by the public. So what’s up with the bitterness? Well, the majority of it is due to the success of FDR’s liberal social programs. The New Deal included massive government spending to create jobs and the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which proved that private industry isn’t the only way to create jobs. There’s no way to anger a political opponent than by passing popular and effective legislation. Another element is that most American of traits, anti-Semitism. (“But I didn’t know FDR was Jewish!” you say. He wasn’t -- but no one accused the far right of being rocket scientists, except Werner von Braun, anyway.) We’ll discuss how that applies in a bit. Whatever the roots of the anti-FDR sentiment, though, it is certainly remarkable that the enmity exists more than two generations later in this country. Even today, you’ll see conspiracy theorist websites devoted to decrying Roosevelt’s influence on the country -- and academic articles from scholars and think tank employees slathering over why the New Deal was unconstitutional. It wasn’t, and it happened 70 years ago, but the threat of a good example of liberalism is still pretty threatening to these people. That’s not to say the left doesn’t have problems with FDR. Many saw the New Deal as a cop-out, a bone thrown to the masses who demanded an alternative to the capitalism that was starving them in droves (in their view). In fact, neither the left nor the right felt they had to restrain themselves when criticizing FDR: FDR was "carrying out more thoroughly and brutally than even Hoover the capitalist attack against the masses," according to Communist leader Earl Browder, while American fascist William Dudley Pelley called him the "lowest form of human worm - according to Gentile standards." (Told you so about the anti-Semitism). This isn’t to say that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of FDR. What is legitimate depends on what side of the political discourse you come down on, of course -- but there are certainly things we can all now (hopefully) agree on as grievous acts on FDR’s part. The best example: the massive internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps, a horrific violation of civil liberties and a betrayal of what would appear to be FDR’s own principles. Only recently has there been mass outcry about this mass violation of human rights, which tells you we have a ways to go yet in this country. It also says something about the limits of mainstream liberalism, but we’ll get to that below. All this should tell you that Roosevelt had a monumental impact on American life. If one can inspire vitriol of this nature from both sides of the American political spectrum, I say with a smirk, one has doubtless done something right. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|