Suchergebnisse

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.

Examination of a 1989 court case, in which a Hindustani man living in the Netherlands was tried for inciting his wife's suicide by constant physical maltreatment, explores how intercultural value conflict often revolves around gender inequalities that challenge the women's autonomy. The varied ways minority groups in Western societies treat the forms & extent of female autonomy are examined to contend that they are often not included in liberal discourses about cultural rights/accommodation. Differences between South Asian & Western notions of personhood & autonomy are explored, & psychoanalytical understandings of the "structure" of Asian & Western personalities are drawn on to present a modified conception of autonomy that is compatible with Asian cultures yet acceptable to Western liberals. Special attention is given to relations between "intrapsychic" & "interpersonal" autonomy, maintaining that liberal theorists ignore important psychological resources by focusing only on the latter. It is argued that this modified conception of autonomy goes beyond being useful in accommodating minority cultures to address the concern that civic virtue among citizens is declining. J. Lindroth

Examination of a 1989 court case, in which a Hindustani man living in the Netherlands was tried for inciting his wife's suicide by constant physical maltreatment, explores how intercultural value conflict often revolves around gender inequalities that challenge the women's autonomy. The varied ways minority groups in Western societies treat the forms & extent of female autonomy are examined to contend that they are often not included in liberal discourses about cultural rights/accommodation. Differences between South Asian & Western notions of personhood & autonomy are explored, & psychoanalytical understandings of the "structure" of Asian & Western personalities are drawn on to present a modified conception of autonomy that is compatible with Asian cultures yet acceptable to Western liberals. Special attention is given to relations between "intrapsychic" & "interpersonal" autonomy, maintaining that liberal theorists ignore important psychological resources by focusing only on the latter. It is argued that this modified conception of autonomy goes beyond being useful in accommodating minority cultures to address the concern that civic virtue among citizens is declining. J. Lindroth

In a 1997 debate in the Netherlands about sex-selective abortion, it was assumed that certain cultural minorities have a cultural preference for sons & that sex-selective abortions may be sought on that ground. Here, questions about women's rights, cultural toleration, & public morality emerging from this debate are raised, discussing how a diversity- & an autonomy-based approach to toleration could balance these different values. It is argued that, although sex-selective abortion is morally wrong, access to abortion should not be restricted. 31 References. Adapted from the source document.

While women in Europe who wear the Islamic headscarf are generally seen as outsiders who do not belong to the nation, some countries are more tolerant towards the wearing of headscarves than others. France, Germany and the Netherlands have developed different policies regarding veiling. In this paper we describe how headscarves became regulated in each of these countries and discuss the ways in which French, Dutch and German politicians have deliberated the issue. The paper is based on a content analysis of parliamentary debates on veiling in France (1989–2007), Germany (1997–2007) and the Netherlands (1985–2007). Our aim is to discuss what these national political debates reveal about the way in which the social inclusion of Islamic women in (or rather exclusion from) the nation is perceived in these three countries. Our claim is that veiling arouses opposition because it challenges national self-understandings. Yet, because nations have different histories of nation building, these self-understandings are challenged in various ways and hence, governments have responded to headscarves with diverse regulation. While we did find national differences, we also discovered that the political debates in the three countries are converging over time. The trend is towards increasingly gendered debates and more restrictive headscarf policies. This, we hypothesize, is explained by international polarization around Islam and the strength of the populist anti-immigrant parties across Europe

While women in Europe who wear the Islamic headscarf are generally seen as outsiders who do not belong to the nation, some countries are more tolerant towards the wearing of headscarves than others. France, Germany and the Netherlands have developed different policies regarding veiling. In this paper we describe how headscarves became regulated in each of these countries and discuss the ways in which French, Dutch and German politicians have deliberated the issue. The paper is based on a content analysis of parliamentary debates on veiling in France (1989–2007), Germany (1997–2007) and the Netherlands (1985–2007). Our aim is to discuss what these national political debates reveal about the way in which the social inclusion of Islamic women in (or rather exclusion from) the nation is perceived in these three countries. Our claim is that veiling arouses opposition because it challenges national self-understandings. Yet, because nations have different histories of nation building, these self-understandings are challenged in various ways and hence, governments have responded to headscarves with diverse regulation. While we did find national differences, we also discovered that the political debates in the three countries are converging over time. The trend is towards increasingly gendered debates and more restrictive headscarf policies. This, we hypothesize, is explained by international polarization around Islam and the strength of the populist anti-immigrant parties across Europe.

While women in Europe who wear the Islamic headscarf are generally seen as outsiders who do not belong to the nation, some countries are more tolerant towards the wearing of headscarves than others. France, Germany and the Netherlands have developed different policies regarding veiling. In this paper we describe how headscarves became regulated in each of these countries and discuss the ways in which French, Dutch and German politicians have deliberated the issue. The paper is based on a content analysis of parliamentary debates on veiling in France (1989-2007), Germany (1997-2007) and the Netherlands (1985-2007). Our aim is to discuss what these national political debates reveal about the way in which the social inclusion of Islamic women in (or rather exclusion from) the nation is perceived in these three countries. Our claim is that veiling arouses opposition because it challenges national self-understandings. Yet, because nations have different histories of nation building, these self-understandings are challenged in various ways and hence, governments have responded to headscarves with diverse regulation. While we did find national differences, we also discovered that the political debates in the three countries are converging over time. The trend is towards increasingly gendered debates and more restrictive headscarf policies. This, we hypothesize, is explained by international polarization around Islam and the strength of the populist anti-immigrant parties across Europe.