Double-edged

Tomorrow should be an interesting day - or, at least, the hours nine until eleven in the morning (East Coast time).

Tomorrow we discuss CEDAW - the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We will be discussing cultural relativism, particularly, given the cultural objections to CEDAW. This is of particular interest to me for several reasons:

1) I have a slight tendency to be interested in women's rights, which you may have picked up from this website (although, of course, as with all things I do, it is a subtle and nuanced and in no way ranting discussion);

2) I went to see Catherine Mackinnon (due to this slight interest) speak a couple of weeks ago, and she is working right now on how human rights are or are not those of the rights of women, and the mechanisms of international law to deal with that or, indeed, entrench cultural patriarchy;

3) I am working rather intensely on another international convention, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and it is fascinating to compare them and the different approaches to the problems of racial and gender discrimination (although CEDAW does, interestingly, talk of the intersection between race and gender problems - and I cannot deny that my thoughts have been greatly informed by Mackinnon's talk);

4) Both Mackinnon and Catherine Powell, whose piece on CEDAW and Western cultural objections we read for tomorrow's class, talk about the failings of the international law system due to emphasis on sovereignty of nation-states and the nation-state as the founding block of international law. Now, of course, Bentham invented the term "international law" to deal with the law between nations... however, as this has evolved and human rights law has pierced that veil, that shield of states' protection, it's interesting to think about what we expect of nations and the international community - how often we appeal to the conglomeration of states to fix a problem in our own nation, rather than fix it from within.

It's also of great interest to me because we will be talking about cultural relativism, imperialism and topics along those lines, framed in a discussion of female genital mutilation. Some give it a "proper" name, infibulation, which I instinctively don't want to use because it gives a scientific sounding name to what is a procedure that I cannot but help think of as a mutilation, hence my maintaining that phrase. This issue really does illustrate the heart of many problems of the West and non-West clash, the problems of imperialism, race, culture... I understand many of the critiques offered of the opposition to FGM, and yet...

Critiques include:

1) That the objections to FGM suggest that women's sexuality is all that matters.

Having said I understand the criticism, this one I had a great deal of trouble believing, that someone would offer it up, genuinely. Women's reproductive health is central to life, per se - to bearing children, and, conversely therefore it is essential that they have control over something which is fundamental to humans in general and the power over which men (and other women) try to usurp. If one cannot see that there is a reflection on women's identity in society due to what your community values - complete chastity in a woman being the primary one, that all you are aiming for is to be someone's - anyone's wife - due to this operation which embodies those limiting values, then I despair.

2) That this is one of the worst kinds of western imperialism because it fails to recognize that women want this, practice this, and it reflects what the society wants.

Understand this; it's a genuine concern, and one that I as a white middle-class woman struggle with on an almost daily basis. However, I also have trouble with Western, white, Judaeo-Christian societies that believe that women's chastity determine their worth in society, and that all we want to do is be someone's wife at home with the children. If that's what you want, great - more power to you. Just don't think that we should all be like this because it's the only way to be a good woman.

and so on. you get the idea. pah.

Time to read Corporations - yum! Yum!!!

Or not.