Flavia Agnes
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198067900
- eISBN:
- 9780199081295
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198067900.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Family Law
This chapter studies a modern constitution and its different provisions, as well as its assurances of freedom and equality to its female citizens. Compared to the previous chapter, this chapter is ...
More
This chapter studies a modern constitution and its different provisions, as well as its assurances of freedom and equality to its female citizens. Compared to the previous chapter, this chapter is divided into only three sections: locating women’s claims in the constitutional domain, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the different attempts at formulating the UCC. The first section discusses the different struggles women have experienced in order to meet the binaries of the public and private domains of traditional notions of citizenship. These are defined based on the masculine norms of propertied men. The second section features contesting claims of the majority-minority dichotomy, which are used to examine the political debate on Article 44, or the enactment of a UCC. The final section examines the many drafts of the UCC using a purely academic point of view. These drafts were prepared by different sections, including state functionaries and legal academia, and were written from the perspective of gender justice.Less
This chapter studies a modern constitution and its different provisions, as well as its assurances of freedom and equality to its female citizens. Compared to the previous chapter, this chapter is divided into only three sections: locating women’s claims in the constitutional domain, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the different attempts at formulating the UCC. The first section discusses the different struggles women have experienced in order to meet the binaries of the public and private domains of traditional notions of citizenship. These are defined based on the masculine norms of propertied men. The second section features contesting claims of the majority-minority dichotomy, which are used to examine the political debate on Article 44, or the enactment of a UCC. The final section examines the many drafts of the UCC using a purely academic point of view. These drafts were prepared by different sections, including state functionaries and legal academia, and were written from the perspective of gender justice.
Drucilla Cornell
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780823257577
- eISBN:
- 9780823261574
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823257577.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
This chapter revisits my own notion of ethical feminism, through an engagement with the recent work of Judith Butler and Gayatri Spivak. The central argument is that not only must we recognize that ...
More
This chapter revisits my own notion of ethical feminism, through an engagement with the recent work of Judith Butler and Gayatri Spivak. The central argument is that not only must we recognize that all universals are incomplete, and call for translation, but that the step to take seriously that other intellectual traditions are equal to Anglo-American and European schools of thought means that we may have to re-evaluate our own notions of freedom and equality. This re-evaluation is particularly important for transnational feminist alliances, if they are to truly be based in an egalitarian feminist politics that is not blocked by particularistic notions of the significance of Europe.Less
This chapter revisits my own notion of ethical feminism, through an engagement with the recent work of Judith Butler and Gayatri Spivak. The central argument is that not only must we recognize that all universals are incomplete, and call for translation, but that the step to take seriously that other intellectual traditions are equal to Anglo-American and European schools of thought means that we may have to re-evaluate our own notions of freedom and equality. This re-evaluation is particularly important for transnational feminist alliances, if they are to truly be based in an egalitarian feminist politics that is not blocked by particularistic notions of the significance of Europe.
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- March 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226677231
- eISBN:
- 9780226677224
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226677224.003.0019
- Subject:
- Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law
Perhaps no decision of the Supreme Court that is not perceived as morally evil in its result has been the subject of so much criticism as the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court's holding—that the state ...
More
Perhaps no decision of the Supreme Court that is not perceived as morally evil in its result has been the subject of so much criticism as the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court's holding—that the state of Louisiana did not violate the Constitution of the United States by granting the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company a monopoly over the operation of slaughterhouses within the city and environs of New Orleans—is seldom the object of great interest. What excites widespread censure are the constitutional misdeeds the Court allegedly committed in coming to its judgment. The central items of the usual bill of particulars are the assertion that the Court eviscerated the privileges or immunities clause of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment by giving it so narrow a construction that it has since been of virtually no practical importance, and that the Court manifested a fundamental hostility toward the Civil War amendments that led eventually to the judicial dismantling of Reconstruction and Plessy v. Ferguson's tragic approval of Jim Crow segregation, judicial misdeeds that indefinitely delayed implementation of the nation's promise of freedom and equality to African Americans.Less
Perhaps no decision of the Supreme Court that is not perceived as morally evil in its result has been the subject of so much criticism as the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court's holding—that the state of Louisiana did not violate the Constitution of the United States by granting the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company a monopoly over the operation of slaughterhouses within the city and environs of New Orleans—is seldom the object of great interest. What excites widespread censure are the constitutional misdeeds the Court allegedly committed in coming to its judgment. The central items of the usual bill of particulars are the assertion that the Court eviscerated the privileges or immunities clause of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment by giving it so narrow a construction that it has since been of virtually no practical importance, and that the Court manifested a fundamental hostility toward the Civil War amendments that led eventually to the judicial dismantling of Reconstruction and Plessy v. Ferguson's tragic approval of Jim Crow segregation, judicial misdeeds that indefinitely delayed implementation of the nation's promise of freedom and equality to African Americans.
